Does MS need to support more new IPs this gen? *spawn

[Rotmm]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Rotmm]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[mrcorbo]

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.

Pick any metric you choose (sales, metacritic ranking, ???) and look at the impact that new, exclusive IPs have had as compared to sequels and even more so multiplatform sequels over the last 3 years. I think you might be surprised at what you find. People also seem to have forgotten how slow PS3 gamers were to embrace Sony's new, exclusive, IP strategy in the early years. They were much more likely to buy sequels of franchises that had been popular on PS2, regardless of exclusivity.

 

[Scott_Arm]

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

Trials is not a first party exclusive. Trials is now under the Ubisoft umbrella, and it did not prevent them from making great use of the hardware. With third parties pushing great technology, I think first parties are becoming less important, at least in that regard.

Microsoft seemed to attract quite a few new IPs this gen, and I expect that to continue next gen as well. How they choose to attract or foster those developments is up to them.

 

[liolio]

Imho this late in the console lifetime, no.
Or least no xx millions budget exclusives.

 

[Nesh]

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.

Oh unfortunately some of these exclusive IPs came at the beginning of the console's life (also due to the PS3's delay and slow start), some of them were bad or mediocre (see Too Human, Ninja Blade, Sahdowrun, Ninty Nine Nights) and almost all of them were lost as if they never happened. These games didnt come out of MGS either. They were only published. Things started to get even more stagnant in time

My 360 is mostly a multiplatform console with sparse exclusives that are considered must haves
Because of this my PS3 is getting most of my playtime and it brought me more unique gaming value.

Sony's own studios were producing more titles that came to stay or leave their strong presence in the console's history

It is no coincidence the PS3 was winning more awards for best software for the last years

 

[Nesh]

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.

There are many factors that contribute to a console's success. One of them, are certainly exclusive titles and another are strong and new IP's. Exclusive games in general are more important. The 360 has been having a price advantage for some time. It manage to come out sooner helping it establish an initial exclusive line up (lots of new and non new IP's) which boosted its popularity and sales. The PS3 came late, software line up was a serious problem for it. Titles such as Bioshock were associated with 360 before becoming multiplatform.

If both consoles were released simultaneously at similar prices the battle would have been defined certainly by exclusive titles and new IP's