The IPs are going to be out before E3 next year. Barring a manufacturing hiccup or something else unforeseen, then they'll attempt to release around the same time. Probably in early Nov again. Don't see an issue personally. I am interested in how they'll compare because there's so many factors in play. And Sony is still willing to play ball evidently.
Does MS need to support more new IPs this gen? *spawn
- Thread starter Brad Grenz
- Start date
The IPs are going to be out before E3 next year. Barring a manufacturing hiccup or something else unforeseen, then they'll attempt to release around the same time. Probably in early Nov again. Don't see an issue personally. I am interested in how they'll compare because there's so many factors in play. And Sony is still willing to play ball evidently.
I think one thing which is just as important as exclusives themselves is the expectation of exclusives of a known quantity. I believe Sony benefited greatly from the expectation that certain I.P. would be exclusive or at least coming to the PS3 this generation which set them up for a certain level of sales for this generation. In this light I believe they could benefit from more new I.P. exclusives if only because that is another 'roll of the dice' in terms of trying to get another break out hit or two. I don't believe it is paramount at this point but there is an argument you could make in favour of it if something promising comes their way in the closing months of this generation.
Persistantthug
Newcomer
Does MS need to support more new IPs this gen?
As a gamer....most definitely
As a matter of fact, I believe Microsoft has basically abandoned its core gamers in favor of Kinect. Similarly, Microsoft abandoned core gamers for greener pastures with the XBOX 1.
It just seems that Microsoft is barely interested, and maybe the fans themselves should speak up about it more than they do and start doing a little abandoning themselves.
Maybe then Microsoft will get the message, because Surely you can't expect change by pretending everything's fine when it's not.
As a gamer....most definitely
As a matter of fact, I believe Microsoft has basically abandoned its core gamers in favor of Kinect. Similarly, Microsoft abandoned core gamers for greener pastures with the XBOX 1.
It just seems that Microsoft is barely interested, and maybe the fans themselves should speak up about it more than they do and start doing a little abandoning themselves.
Maybe then Microsoft will get the message, because Surely you can't expect change by pretending everything's fine when it's not.
Devious
Regular
If there is one thing that I wish MS would do is for them to release their current first-party studio lineup like Sony did with their Worldwide Studios site. This is so I can get a sense on what studios they actually have. The one they have at Wikipedia is all over the place. 
So a Halo, Gears, Forza and Fable over the next 12-16 months counts as abandoning the core userbase? Granted fable is a spinoff. If that's abandonment then I want to know what they'd have to do to please people. IIRC thats their 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th biggest exclusives, Fable is 4th if you want to exclude that.
dragonelite
Veteran
Sony does pumps out a lot of exclusives but most of the time you have a lot of multiplats that do a better job then 80% of those exclusives. Or they are niche and im not the target. Microsoft focusses on proven IP and maybe test drive new IP on XBLA but a lot of folks think those are not real games :'(
So, let me try to distill all of the arguments I've seen into one and see where that leaves us.
Unless a platform holder is ensuring that some number of full disc releases that are exclusive to the platform, are in specific genres and feature new IP are available for their platform they are not serving their core gamers.
Is that more or less correct? If a consensus can be reached on the number of releases that are necessary and the specific genres that count I'll add them in.
Unless a platform holder is ensuring that some number of full disc releases that are exclusive to the platform, are in specific genres and feature new IP are available for their platform they are not serving their core gamers.
Is that more or less correct? If a consensus can be reached on the number of releases that are necessary and the specific genres that count I'll add them in.
That's the definition.....on forums. In this case looking at real life console sales, game sames and top 10 games one sees that the core have already made their chose of prefered console, implying that Microsoft is doing exactly the right thing and showing how once again forums often have little resemblence with reality.
Persistantthug
Newcomer
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Then I hope they enjoy their Kinect.
Oh.....and Usher.
Yes, because creating a new studio for the sole purpose of continuing to provide the core userbase what it wants isn't serving the core userbase?
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the cost of creating the new studio added to the cost of developing Halo 4 exceeds 100 million USD (pure guess, no sources). If that is abandoning the core gamer, then...uh. What? And unlikely spending 100 million USD on a new IP, MS are likely quite convinced they'll recoup their entire investment and then some because they already know that the core userbase will buy it in droves, because that is what a large chunk of the core userbase is demanding.
Creating new IP isn't bad. It's risky certainly, and could sink your company, but it's not "bad." And certainly giving your userbase what it is demanding most certainly isn't bad. So what's wrong with giving the core user what it demands? Especially when there is little to no evidence that consumer fatigue is starting to set in for the franchise?
Would you say the same thing about Sony if they had announced no new "core" IPs (whatever that is as it appears to move depending on the user) and instead just announced sequels for GOW, Uncharted, Resistance, and Killzone?
And in the process showed off 2-3 new IPs for Move with a casual orientation? Regards,
SB
Persistantthug
Newcomer
Yes, because creating a new studio for the sole purpose of continuing to provide the core userbase what it wants isn't serving the core userbase?
And unlikely spending 100 million USD on a new IP, MS are likely quite convinced they'll recoup their entire investment and then some because they already know that the core userbase will buy it in droves, because that is what a large chunk of the core userbase is demanding.
Creating new IP isn't bad. It's risky certainly, and could sink your company, but it's not "bad." And certainly giving your userbase what it is demanding most certainly isn't bad. So what's wrong with giving the core user what it demands? Especially when there is little to no evidence that consumer fatigue is starting to set in for the franchise?
Would you say the same thing about Sony if they had announced no new "core" IPs (whatever that is as it appears to move depending on the user) and instead just announced sequels for GOW, Uncharted, Resistance, and Killzone?
Regards,
SB
Yep.
Fortunately, Sony obviously hasn't abandoned the core and most certainly seems to be delivering new IPs instead of just phoning it in......Fortunately.
I think a better definition is that the core userbase wants more of the same thing and the hardcore userbase, the guys who tend to buy many more titles every year want more of a different thing. The core userbase is happy because they bought the system for the Halos, Call of Duties, Gears of Wars, Maddens etc whilst the hardcore userbase wants even more than that. If these people tend to satisfy their own needs regardless by buying say more than 1 console and operating a gaming PC why do they need to be specifically pleased by a single console manufacturer?
Had Sony cared for their core gamers, they would have had a decent game lineup at release, a shooter that could compete against Halo or Gears, and a proper Gran Turismo. Instead we got R:FOM and the half-a-game GT HD. Killzone 2 was too little too late, and GT 5 released in november 2010, four years after the world wide launch of PS3.
MS securing sequels to console exclusive franchises that have sold over 100 million units this generation, is caring for the core gamer
Cheers
Billy Idol
Legend
Err, what are you guys all talking about? All this business mambo jumbo about new IP not worth it at the end of console life cycle?
Huh?
We all know that they have a deal with Crytek...for an exclusive title...err, for a new IP!
So...how does this fit in you guys' MS business masterplan? And now that MS is planing to invest into a new IP this late, and even an exclusive presumable graphics driven core game (Crytek!) ... are you guys all getting mad at MS because you want them to better invest this money into:
- music
- tv shows
- or a kinect lap dance game (to serve the hardcore!)
Crazy! This thread makes me nervous about some peoples attitude towards games...I nearly passed out reading some of the comments
Huh?
We all know that they have a deal with Crytek...for an exclusive title...err, for a new IP!
So...how does this fit in you guys' MS business masterplan? And now that MS is planing to invest into a new IP this late, and even an exclusive presumable graphics driven core game (Crytek!) ... are you guys all getting mad at MS because you want them to better invest this money into:
- music
- tv shows
- or a kinect lap dance game (to serve the hardcore!
)Crazy! This thread makes me nervous about some peoples attitude towards games...I nearly passed out reading some of the comments
Crazy! This thread makes me nervous about some peoples attitude towards games...I nearly passed out reading some of the comments
It's just different priorities. I'd consider myself core gamer as I game on an overclocked i7 pc with a 670 video card on the latest AAA games. But I already have enough AAA games out there, far more than I'll ever get to play. So to me, Microsoft spending money on exclusive ip's is a complete waste of money. I'd far prefer that they don't waste any money there as my core gaming is more than satisfied, and instead they spend money on helping 3rd parties, more XBLive Arcade, Indie and Kinect. Helping 3rd parties should always be priority #1, it's the easiest way to have the best versions of the games core gamers play, and the best way to win over the core. XBLive arcade is awesome and actually where most of my gaming goes nowadays so personally I'd prefer that they spend their money to expand Summer of Arcade to having that level of quality arcade titles coming year round. I'd infinitely prefer that to collosally wasting it on AAA games which are already more than adequately handled by 3rd parties. Likewise the indie scene on 360 is weak compared to what's on Steam, I wish they would spend some money there to help indies out more and take that market more seriously rather than just an afterthought. And Kinect, yes I'm a core gamer and I like it, I definitely want them investing money there. Finally spend money on Live itself. It's already better than the competition but it can be improved, throw some money there. But spending it on AAA exclusives? Hell no! Total waste of money. But that's just my humble opinion as a core gamer, hopefully it didn't make you pass out
Err, what are you guys all talking about? All this business mambo jumbo about new IP not worth it at the end of console life cycle?
Huh?
We all know that they have a deal with Crytek...for an exclusive title...err, for a new IP!
So...how does this fit in you guys' MS business masterplan? And now that MS is planing to invest into a new IP this late, and even an exclusive presumable graphics driven core game (Crytek!) ... are you guys all getting mad at MS because you want them to better invest this money into:
- music
- tv shows
- or a kinect lap dance game (to serve the hardcore!
Crazy! This thread makes me nervous about some peoples attitude towards games...I nearly passed out reading some of the comments
I want as many good games as possible. I'm not saying MS's strategy is above criticism and I can't fairly claim to have a suitable perspective to evaluate the breadth of their release schedule since the 360 is not my only gaming platform. I've been gaming on personal computers (before that became synonymous with Windows-based machines) for longer than I have on consoles and have always had that as a sometimes secondary and sometimes primary option. And I have a PS3 so its exclusives are also options for me.
What I take issue with is the idea that because MS's release schedule is especially light in one (very) specific area they have "abandoned the hardcore". And I take issue with it for two reasons:
#1 it is yet another example of the type of binary thinking that plagues internet discussion in general. Everything is either great or terrible. Success/failure. Love/Hate. Are we really incapable of more nuanced evaluations?
#2 The specificity of the argument for that claim when you account for how specific titles are being dismissed as evidence counter to the claim aligns too perfectly with the difference between what Sony's release lineup looks like vs. MS's for me not to be inclined to find it suspect. Factors like confirmation-bias, cognitive dissonance and self-justification all too easily explain how some are finding this to be a reasonable conclusion. In simpler terms, I don't find the argument that MS are abandoning the hardcore because they aren't doing what Sony is doing to be very compelling, especially when it is coming from people who have made it clear that they are Sony enthusiasts.
I agree with this. Different strokes for different folks. And come on, we're entering the 7th year of the Xbox 360 cycle.
Tommy McClain
This right here is why this thread, and these types of posters described here, are a joke.
So in other words, what you are saying is that all Sony fanboys who like new IP should be glad that Microsoft isn't doing it, so that those people who care enough about new IP buy Playstation 3s, and in turn that leads to new IP being more successful on that platform, which in turn will lead to more new IP?
It's possible that this indeed leads to a situation, as described below, that people will use the 360 for staple Microsoft franchises at this point and use a PC, when they have one, for new games.
Another category of happy owners would be people who only use one console maybe don't play that many different games to begin with, and play it safe, or are more than happy with playing multi-platform titles (more likely).
And of course there are still the XBL/Arcade titles and so on.
It's possible that this indeed leads to a situation, as described below, that people will use the 360 for staple Microsoft franchises at this point and use a PC, when they have one, for new games.
Another category of happy owners would be people who only use one console maybe don't play that many different games to begin with, and play it safe, or are more than happy with playing multi-platform titles (more likely).
And of course there are still the XBL/Arcade titles and so on.
