Before anyone goes on a "you don't need 1st party" parade.

Phil Spencer said this.

http://www.polygon.com/2015...

There has been little to positive investment involving this, only cancellations and closures and like I said above most of their studios are working on Hololens, not Xbox.

Reading these comments Now fanboys are practically saying first party studios don't matter!!!

IN GAMING.. First party doesn't matter.. I am truly blown away... Fanboyism is a serious illness

Never thought I'd listen to Kylie minogue.. But time to go play 'im spinning around'

K.. I'll bite..

Explain to me how the owner of a studio matters to you, the gamer?

@n4rc:

1st parties don't need to shop their game around hoping a publisher will pick them up like 3rd party studios do. They're set unless the studio closes.

It's entirely possible that a 3rd party studio that made an exclusive game won't get their next game funded by the 1st party publisher whereas 1st party studios are normally inclined to continue working. If the 1st party publisher owns the IP, the 3rd party studio has to drop that IP and make a new one. New IPs, even by prominent studios, don't always do well, even if they're practically the same game that put the studio on the map. Name recognition does a lot for a game.

@zeuanimals

Don't take the bait.. If @n4rc doesn't understand the importance of first party studios leave him to argue with himself.

But just to top off what you said..@n4rc.. Gamers BUY GAMES.. Which fund further projects which in turn gives you confidence in a studio to innovate and put out further projects when ready just like naughty dog just like nintendo... So yeh as a gamer first party matters to me and many others... It's not rocket science

Pretty much . It greatly reduces liabilities and overhead. Cut a check for a product, or cut hundreds of checks for payroll, retirement, taxes, insurance, rent, HR, insurance claims, unemployment, law suits, etc. It's just business.

People have argued about MS's strategy regarding In-house vs. Contractual agreements for years. It's a slightly different approach then their competitors take, but different isn't necessarily better or worse.

I still think giving independent studios financial security through contracted exclusives, while allowing them to keep their autonomy, is a positive to MS's approach that gets overlooked.

Not to take away from Sony or Nintendo's more substantial in-house focus, though. I can't fault either approach.

In the end, both strategies mean more games keep getting made. I'm happy with that.

the way i see it is less risk and less overhead for microsoft. instead of employing development teams they would rather use contractors. then if a game does succeed like gears of war did they can just buy that ip and maybe hire a studio to work on the franchise.

what it does highlight is microsoft is unwilling to invest within and take risks. it's a huge investment making aaa games so they can reduce that risk a bit by hiring studios like remedy instead of creating their own teams.

a lot of people are wondering if rare still has any talent left. or will they too go the way of lionhead studios? many of the original members of rare left long ago so we will see. sea of thieves so far looks very promising so we will have to wait and see.

i just don't like how it is really all treated as a business. look at music and how so much of it sounds the same. look at movies and how many sequels are out there. same thing with games, very few new ip's compared to the rest. which leads to stagnation and why everyone is excited to see how vr pans out or hololens. or even what nintendo has cooking up. there needs to be something that regenerates the industry because right now it's floating.

Congrats to you both, neither one of you actually offered up anything that the consumer needs to worry about.. Shocker!

You seem to think I or anyone else needs to worry about a dev shopping their game to a publisher.. That's their business and problem.

If naughty dog was a 2nd party, you wouldn't of enjoyed the last of us or uncharted? Or maybe you think only Sony would put up money for those games? You're delusional

Whether or not you have first party studios really matters if your product is not competitive in sales compared to your competition. If your a third party developer and looking at which console to put your game on, your obviously going to be drawn to the console that has the highest sales, or your going to want a much larger check knowing you'll probably sale less games due to less consumers owning that console. With first party that doesn't matter. So the only reason Xbox gamers need to worry is if MS is being outsold like 2 to 1 or something like....oh wait. Never mind. First party studios matter when your making consoles. Period! Stop lying to yourself.
Unless they are going PC and dropping console, it matters.

So that's now 3 people that can't find a reason it matters to the gamer..

Stop worrying about their business decisions that don't affect you..

And BTW.. You made a case against 3rd party exclusive deals and NOTHING to do with first party benefitting you more then a 2nd party game

@n4rc it benefits gamers thusly...
1. 1st party matters because *good* exclusives shift console units. More console units means more players for you to play against at all hours and days of the year. Which means you can enjoy your console of choice *any* time you are free.

2. It matters to me that Sony owns a studio because I believe they truely understand gamers and gaming and the diversity and spectrum of games required. IPs like Journey or Uncharted, would have never been green lit by Microsoft, because it was too risky or not deemed as money making. Microsoft went with the tried and tested Tomb Raider over the years. Even though they are similar games, Sony's faith in its 1St party to "do its thing" means that Naughty Dog can execute 150% on their vision for that Franchise. Same with Last of Us. Just another zombie shooter, is what Microsoft would have seen and not the epic story behind it. That is why Xbox One's AAA title sheet is made up of dude Bro shooters and a racer, while Sony's portfolio is made up of a more diverse mix of titles.

3. If à studio is owned by the platform owner they should have access to the hardware long before 3Rd parties get their hands on it. This should mean that 1St party games are more performant and look better that those made by 3Rd parties because 1St parties have had more time to learn the tips and tricks of the hardware.
Last gen compare the quality of games from 3Rd parties to God of War, Uncharted or Last of Us. Which held their frame rate and looked better?? 1St party games did on both Xbox 360 or PS3 respectively were better than their 3Rd party counter parts.

So owners of studios matters massively!!!

How is it financially possible to contract something out and not take a financial risk? That makes no sense.

@343_Guilty_Spark
"How is it financially possible to contract something out and not take a financial risk? That makes no sense."

there is always risks but when you hire well known developers that risk is a little less and it also means less overhead since you do not have to keep employing those people after the project is done.

@blackout

Hmmm name calling and personal attacks ....... maybe you need to reread my comment because none of that happened. Maybe reading isn't your best skill so it could just be that but it seems you got on your high horse faster than you can read a sentence efficiently.

Magoo

You said his point was stupid...that's personally attacking, just like you're doing so again by saying my comprehension isn't up to scratch.

Trolling needs some work I think bud and so does your attitude towards others.