[Proelite]

Originally Posted by Brad Grenz

I said developers because I meant developers.

In that case, Team ICO has no developers at all.

[dlm]

Originally Posted by Brad Grenz

I said developers because I meant developers.

This was already clear. I was explaining where the confusion was so that if you found yourself in this situation again, you wouldn't be surprised when your intentions were misinterpreted.

Not really sure why you felt the need to make a snarky response stating something you already said, adding a net zero value to the conversation.

[Brad Grenz]

Originally Posted by Proelite

In that case, Team ICO has no developers at all.

But overall Sony Worldwide studios employs 2700+ people. If you add together all Nintendo's first party studios it's about 1200 people. There aren't great numbers available for MS, but if I (charitably) assume all the new studios working on unannounced projects have on average 200 people each and add that to the known numbers it's still only like ~1400.

The fact that Sony employs far more people in their first party stable than either Nintendo or MS isn't exactly a secret in the industry, or a controversial statement.

Originally Posted by dlm

Not really sure why you felt the need to make a snarky response stating something you already said, adding a net zero value to the conversation.

Apologies. I misinterpreted your response. I may have been overly sensitive given some of the other posts directed at me in this thread so far. I don't remember the original source, where I had originally heard the factoid, but just going to Wikipedia and following a few links to press releases, etc, bears out my claim.

[Brad Grenz]

Originally Posted by AzBat

How many of those people are actually programmers & artists? For all we know half of them are janitors. LOL Sorry couldn't resist. BTW, when did quantity equate with quality? It could be said Microsoft & Nintendo need less people to do the same quality as Sony. Zing Sorry for that one too. LOL

I assume all three companies have some percentage of administrative and support staffers represented in those numbers at roughly equal rates. That doesn't mean they can't be compared. And I never claimed anything about quality. But nice try.

And my apologies for challenging the rampant Microsoft sycophantism. I hadn't realized you all were so insecure about your platform choices.

[AzBat]

Originally Posted by Brad Grenz

I assume all three companies have some percentage of administrative and support staffers represented in those numbers at roughly equal rates. That doesn't mean they can't be compared. And I never claimed anything about quality. But nice try.

It's me being funny & not being serious. It's funny how you totally missed the jokes. LOL

Originally Posted by Brad Grenz

And my apologies for challenging the rampant Microsoft sycophantism. I hadn't realized you all were so insecure about your platform choices.

Hey I don't have problems about challenging opinions, ideas & notions, but I think you you went a little too far. BTW, it's a Microsoft thread about E3, how it's not suppose to be self-serving? It's a place us fanboys can enjoy ourselves. However, If you want to express your opinions on how Microsoft has abandoned core gamers or no longers thinks new IP is necessary, then start a new thread about it & crap on them all you want there. But again this is a Microsoft thread about what they showcased at E3. Not your place to unload on them.

Tommy McClain

[Brad Grenz]

Talking about what Microsoft showed in their conference is exactly what I did. I don't know why that would have to be segregated from this thread just because I was critical of their direction. If all you're interested in is basking in Microsoft's warm glow, I'd suggest an Xbox fansite.

[mrcorbo]

Originally Posted by Brad Grenz

And my apologies for challenging the rampant Microsoft sycophantism. I hadn't realized you all were so insecure about your platform choices.

Is that how you justify your compulsive MS trolling? You feel you're providing balance?

Originally Posted by Brad Grenz

Talking about what Microsoft showed in their conference is exactly what I did. I don't know why that would have to be segregated from this thread just because I was critical of their direction. If all you're interested in is basking in Microsoft's warm glow, I'd suggest an Xbox fansite.

I find it hard to believe that you really don't understand that the reaction you've been getting in this thread isn't a result of you being, "critical of their direction". It's because of your long history of universal negativity towards anything and everything MS-related. You can't be unaware of how that effects how you and anything you post are perceived.

[Brad Grenz]

Originally Posted by mrcorbo

Is that how you justify your compulsive MS trolling? You feel you're providing balance?

I find it hard to believe that you really don't understand that the reaction you've been getting in this thread isn't a result of you being, "critical of their direction". It's because of your long history of universal negativity towards anything and everything MS-related. You can't be unaware of how that effects how you and anything you post are perceived.

And yet so many seem surprisingly tolerant of the compulsive Sony "trolling" from some here. It's a shame I don't have the mystique of being a developer like joker454 or an MS employee like bkilian to cloak myself in. It doesn't seem to matter when I have facts on my side.

[antwan]

It's a rather odd question; it implies that MS supported new IP this gen.
Outside of Gears of War and viva pinata, I can't think of any exclusive new IP MS had, unless it was a minigame type of thing from the kinnect, or that mediocre launch game... with the female character (it was by rare I think)

So why would people expect it now?
Are people just trolling MS or what???

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by antwan

It's a rather odd question; it implies that MS supported new IP this gen.
Outside of Gears of War and viva pinata, I can't think of any exclusive new IP MS had, unless it was a minigame type of thing from the kinnect, or that mediocre launch game... with the female character (it was by rare I think)

So why would people expect it now?
Are people just trolling MS or what???

Seriously? Alan Wake? Kameo? There's probably something else I'm forgetting that isn't Kinect related. But add in Kinect titles which are still full fledged games despite you not liking them, and that grows.

It could be argued that most of the new IP this generation started on X360, likely with some help from MS to get things running. Bioshock, Left 4 Dead, Mass Effect, Saints Row, Dead Rising, Crackdown, Lost Planet, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Chrome Hounds, Battlestations Midway, Condemned: Criminal Origins, Venetica, The Outfit, The Last Remnant, and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there's many others.

Sure some of those eventually came to the PS3, but they all got their start or are still exclusive to the X360. And sure, MS could very well have paid studios for exclusives on some titles. But that isn't much different than footing the bill to develope a title internally. Granted it has a smaller return on investment, but it also has a much lower risk profile.

That some claim there has been little to no new IP on the platform is ridiculous. To claim that X360 is all shooters is even more ridiculous. Look at that list of new IP. There's a lot of games that weren't shooters. If people want to claim that the top sellers are dominated by shooters, that claim also applies to the PS3.

Yes, Sony has more first party exclusive. No doubt. That's pretty hard to avoid when you have more internal studios and very few franchises with the following of the MS backed franchises.

If Sony had a Halo equivalent franchise, you can bet they'd constantly release sequels for it as well. But their best selling franchise is Grand Turismo. Oh crap there goes that theory. It's on, what? The 5th version now? The next most successful franchises for them at the moment are GOW and Uncharted. And, uh, guess what? Yeah, they are getting sequels.

Any publisher or developer that doesn't give consumers what they demand is stupid. MS has a limited amount of internal studios. If consumers demand more Halo (and they absolutely do) then that's one studio tied up. If consumers demand more Fable (and they do) then that's another studio tied up.

And to add to that MS is on a tear introducting bucketloads of new IP to support the new peripheral which people are demanding.

Ergo, just like Sony, MS are attempting to give people what they want. Only Sony hasn't found anything yet that people want quite as much as Halo, so they keep trying. If the positions were reversed and it was Sony that had Halo, they'd keep releasing sequels while MS kept releasing new IP in hopes of getting a mega blockbuster IP that tons of people want to play.

Regards,
SB

[Rotmm]

Originally Posted by antwan

It's a rather odd question; it implies that MS supported new IP this gen.
Outside of Gears of War and viva pinata, I can't think of any exclusive new IP MS had,...

Just a few 'core' MGS titles, New IP's, from memory for the Xbox 360:

Mass Effect
Crackdown
Shadowrun
Lost Odyssey
Ninja Blade
Ninty Nine Nights
Too Human
Alan Wake
Blue Dragon

There are more (and some with sequels) and that doesn't include the dozens of new IP's in the downloadable space that MS have brought to the party.

[antwan]

Originally Posted by antwan

It's a rather odd question; it implies that MS supported new IP this gen.
Outside of Gears of War and viva pinata, I can't think of any exclusive new IP MS had, unless it was a minigame type of thing from the kinnect, or that mediocre launch game... with the female character (it was by rare I think)

So why would people expect it now?
Are people just trolling MS or what???

read my post again, it said exclusive new IP.
Unless you want to give MS credit for Assasins Creed and Mass Effect as well?

The mediocre launch game with the female character is Kameo (I looked it up)

Alan Wake was bought so it became a timed exclusive, as you might know it was once a PC showcase title.
Come to think of it, Gears or War was a timed console exclusive as well. They changed that for the 2nd and 3rd game btw.
My point still stands,
Regards.

[antwan]

Originally Posted by Rotmm

Just a few 'core' MGS titles, New IP's, from memory for the Xbox 360:

[s]Mass Effect[/s]
Crackdown
[s]Shadowrun[/s]
Lost Odyssey
Ninja Blade
Ninty Nine Nights
Too Human
[s]Alan Wake[/s]
Blue Dragon

There are more (and some with sequels) and that doesn't include the dozens of new IP's in the downloadable space that MS have brought to the party.

Sorry, I completely forgot about those games. Actually, Lost Odyssey was pretty memorable so I don't know how that could happen

[Rotmm]

Originally Posted by antwan

read my post again, it said exclusive new IP.
Unless you want to give MS credit for Assasins Creed and Mass Effect as well?

Mass Effect 1 was exclusive at the time until EA bought Bioware. Alan Wake was Platform exclusive to MS for a time, Shadowrun was released by MS on both the 360 and PC. All were only released on MS platforms.

Unless your argument is that an IP can only be considered 'exclusive' if it stays on the main platform. Going by that logic, Resistance, Killzone, Crackdown, Viva Pinata, Uncharted, etc cannot be considered exclusive new IP as they have all had variations released on handheld platforms.

[antwan]

Originally Posted by Rotmm

Mass Effect 1 was exclusive at the time until EA bought Bioware. Alan Wake was Platform exclusive to MS for a time, Shadowrun was released by MS on both the 360 and PC. All were only released on MS platforms.

Unless your argument is that an IP can only be considered 'exclusive' if it stays on the main platform. Going by that logic, Resistance, Killzone, Crackdown, Viva Pinata, Uncharted, etc cannot be considered exclusive new IP as they have all had variations released on handheld platforms.

Yes. If Uncharted 3 was released on PC tomorrow then I would not consider that game exclusive anymore.
However, an uncharted PS Vita title would not change the fact that U3 is only playable on PS3. Hence "exclusive".

Shadowrun was like Mass Effect 1 and 2 if I'm not mistaken; playable on PC from day one.

ontopic: IMO MS it's strength lies in 'securing' timed exclusives. the amount of new exclusive IP this gen, plus the success of the 360 tells me that in the US market MS does not need new exclusive IP's.
So to answer the OP question: No, MS does not need to support more new IP's this generation.

[Rotmm]

Originally Posted by antwan

Yes. If Uncharted 3 was released on PC tomorrow then I would not consider that game exclusive anymore.
However, an uncharted PS Vita title would not change the fact that U3 is only playable on PS3. Hence "exclusive".

So you didn't mean IP at all then, you meant indiviual games. Or would you now consider Halo 3 a "New IP"?

I'm confused by this seemingly moving target.

As an aside, Mass Effect 1 was published by Microsoft Game Studios and was exclusive to the 360 on release. A PC version was released later under the auspices of EA games who had by then bought Bioware (actually the deal went through before ME1 was actually released) and was a conversaion by a 3rd party.

[antwan]

Originally Posted by Rotmm

So you didn't mean IP at all then, you meant indiviual games. Or would you now consider Halo 3 a "New IP"?

I'm confused by this seemingly moving target.

As an aside, Mass Effect 1 was published by Microsoft Game Studios and was exclusive to the 360 on release. A PC version was released later under the auspices of EA games who had by then bought Bioware (actually the deal went through before ME1 was actually released) and was a conversaion by a 3rd party.

I was only demonstrating the concept of "exclusive" with regards to "variations". You can apply that to new IP as well.

Halo3 is not new IP. It is an exclusive game though.
Assassins Creed is new IP. It is not an exclusive game.
Crackdown is new IP. It is an exclusive game.

Variations on new, exclusive IP; like Uncharted : Golden Abyss, do not make it old IP.
I hope you understand now.

[Rotmm]

Originally Posted by antwan

Variations on new, exclusive IP; like Uncharted : Golden Abyss, do not make it old IP

I never said it made it old IP. Your point is that once the IP appears on other platforms, it is no longer 'exclusive' IP. You backed up that by highlighting that Gears of War, Mass Effect and Alan Wake cannot be considered exclusive IP supported by MS because those intellectual properties later turned up on other (usually PC, ie: Microsoft) platforms.

It's a strange argument, I agree. Indeed, it makes little sense to me.

However, if that is where you draw your particular line in the sand, then the (for example) Uncharted IP cannot be considered exclusively supported by Sony because that intellectual property turned up on more than one plaftorm (PSP/Vita, ie: Sony).

I can't wait to see where you choose to move the goalposts now

[fearsomepirate]

I don't give MS any points for new IP it didn't have a significant role in funding and developing, but simply happened to come out in the first year after the system was launched. Every generation sees new IP, and if the PS3 and 360 launches had been swapped, games like Condemned and Bioshock would have come out first on it instead. If MS didn't publish it, I'd be very reticent to put it in the "MS column."

That said, MS published quite a bit of new IP this gen--much of it by contracting with outside developers, like Epic, Q, and Remedy. However, very little of it has been successful. What MS needs is not a willingness to support new IP; they need to get better at figuring out what new IP to support.

[Prophecy2k]

Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh

The constant Microsoft bashing by juvenile Sony/Nintendo fanboys is getting pretty effin boring.

Expressing a dislike of MS' current first party development/publishing strategy does not automatically make someone a juvenile Sony/Nintendo fanboy.

In fact such small mindedness and over-sensitivity towards anything expressed even remotely negative towards MS on a public forum could be considered more juvenile and fanboyish than most of the stuff expressed in this thread.

In the end your post adds nothing to the disscussion, and considering these comments were spun out of another thread and not simply deleted outright, I would assume that even the MODs consider the topic at hand as something at least worthy of consideration for discussion and not something to be so easily dismissed out of hand.

The point is, based not only just on MS 2012 E3 conference, but their release schedule for first party core games in the last couple of years, there has been a bit of an over reliance on existing IP and long running game franchises. Whether the other platforms holders do the same is irrelevant, because for someone who is a core gamer, only owning an xbox 360, there has been an undeniable dearth of fresh new IPs developed or published by MS in the most recent period. If said gamers are happy with only sequels of Halo/gears/Forza/Fable, then fine for them, however for those who aren't it presents a very concerning situation, especially when the bulk of MS' recent first-party development isn't going towards new core IP, but a predominantly casual focus.

The big questions are, will this continue? Or is it simply a symptom of their more limited first party development resources (less internal teams), combined with a decision to shift most of that internal dev focus to next-gen (it being the end of the cycle?

These are important questions worthy of discussion, as the answer to both of these questions could very well shift consumer mindshare in their competitor's favour come next-gen launch. Anything is possible.

[Scott_Arm]

Originally Posted by fearsomepirate

I don't give MS any points for new IP it didn't have a significant role in funding and developing, but simply happened to come out in the first year after the system was launched. Every generation sees new IP, and if the PS3 and 360 launches had been swapped, games like Condemned and Bioshock would have come out first on it instead. If MS didn't publish it, I'd be very reticent to put it in the "MS column."

That said, MS published quite a bit of new IP this gen--much of it by contracting with outside developers, like Epic, Q, and Remedy. However, very little of it has been successful. What MS needs is not a willingness to support new IP; they need to get better at figuring out what new IP to support.

Who cares if they develop it internally or externally through secured exclusives or timed exclusives? Either way, it gives 360 gamers new IP to play that is exclusive to the platform at least for a period of time. Honestly, with the short shelf-life of games, if a game is exclusive for a year, or even six months, then it's pretty much exclusive for the most important part of its life. From the gamer's perspective, it doesn't matter who the developer or publisher is, it just matters where they can play it.

MS seems to approach this by having a small group of core IP that is exclusive to the platform, and round out their library by securing exclusives for games, dlc etc. I imagine that approach will continue. They're bound to launch new IPs with a new console, and if they don't make them internally, they'll secure them externally with their deep pockets. People wonder why anyone would do an exclusive deal with MS, because you potentially lose a large portion of the customer base. What you gain is splitting the financial risk of your product with MS, and at the rate developers and publishers are goin' out of business, that might be an attractive way of doing business.

[Shifty Geezer]

For this to be a worthwhile discussion, perhaps the purpose of the 1st party investment needs to be identified first? What constitutes 'new IP' such that it's relevant to gamers? I'd say what gamers want are new game experiences. Whether that's labelled Forza or Ultimate Car Challenge makes no difference, nor whether it's called Halo 28 or SpaceWars Supreme. Reusing an existing name just helps secure interest. Of course, if the name represent the content completely, and Halo 5 plays like Halo 4 plays like Halo 3 plays like Halo 2, then there's no reason for people to buy into the game that they've already experienced.

What the new game franchise potentially offers is a new experience; something different. But even then, a change in name doesn't mean a great deal if the underlying game remains the same. What if Last of Us ends up being pretty simply Uncharted with a new story in a different universe? Those who already played Uncharteds 1, 2 and 3 will be playing the same game again. Whereas if Halo 4 ends up playing completely differently to the prior Halos (and maybe even alienating a lot of existing fans, like Resistance 2 changes over Resistance 1, or the XCom shooter), then it's a new game and something offering a new experience to XB360 owners.

I guess the assumption is that an incremental name change represents an incremental game change, which may be a justified assumption. Perhaps more important than discussion the listed title names is to discuss the range of games coming out?

[Prophecy2k]

Originally Posted by fearsomepirate

I don't give MS any points for new IP it didn't have a significant role in funding and developing, but simply happened to come out in the first year after the system was launched. Every generation sees new IP, and if the PS3 and 360 launches had been swapped, games like Condemned and Bioshock would have come out first on it instead. If MS didn't publish it, I'd be very reticent to put it in the "MS column."

That said, MS published quite a bit of new IP this gen--much of it by contracting with outside developers, like Epic, Q, and Remedy. However, very little of it has been successful. What MS needs is not a willingness to support new IP; they need to get better at figuring out what new IP to support.

I totally agree with this, although I'd say that of the total number of IP's MS have published/developed this generation, a sizeable number have seen success in varying measures. Much moreso on their XBLA platform than at retail.

MS took alot more risks on new IPs earlier on in the gen and I give them points for the number of franchises they initially supported. More recently however this seems not to be the case.

[Billy Idol]

Originally Posted by Scott_Arm

Who cares if they develop it internally or externally through secured exclusives or timed exclusives? Either way, it gives 360 gamers new IP to play that is exclusive to the platform at least for a period of time. Honestly, with the short shelf-life of games, if a game is exclusive for a year, or even six months, then it's pretty much exclusive for the most important part of its life. From the gamer's perspective, it doesn't matter who the developer or publisher is, it just matters where they can play it.

MS seems to approach this by having a small group of core IP that is exclusive to the platform, and round out their library by securing exclusives for games, dlc etc. I imagine that approach will continue. They're bound to launch new IPs with a new console, and if they don't make them internally, they'll secure them externally with their deep pockets. People wonder why anyone would do an exclusive deal with MS, because you potentially lose a large portion of the customer base. What you gain is splitting the financial risk of your product with MS, and at the rate developers and publishers are goin' out of business, that might be an attractive way of doing business.

Hm, Scott...I do not agree with you in this point: I think it does matter if it is really a first party exclusive or a 3rd party exclusive: the engine they use for the game!!

My hope is that a first party engine uses the Xbox much better, see the new HALO4 or the trials game! Gears looks great imo, but I wonder if it could look better with a Xbox dedicated engine?

Furthermore, my naive hope is that exclusive titles are developed with less compromises (e.g. because of the limitations of an other platform) and are just better games. Not objectively, but certainly subjective experience: I like exclusive titles the best, they are typically the ice on the cake

[bkilian]

If the questions was "Should Microsoft have invested in (or supported) more new IP this Gen" Or "Should Microsoft still invest in new IP this gen", my answer would be "Maybe". I'd like them to, but it is unclear as to the advantage gained.

Since the question is "Does MS need to support more new IPs this Gen?". My answer is, "Judging by platform performance, obviously not".

The 360 is now the #1 selling platform worldwide, that's ample evidence of the lack of need for more new IP support.