Developing games in 360 is so easy a Bot can do it.

Ensemble Studios Develops for the Age of Empires IP and the Halo Wars IP. Halo Wars will be Their Last game before the close down for good. So it means no more Age Of Empires games unless Microsoft passes the IP to another in-House Studio, either way, its going to suck. Microsoft's Money Hatting is one of the Biggest Threats other than casual gaming in the Gaming Industry.

Microsoft can only lean on the 3rd party after already reaping from there few 1st party games which is why we see exclusive DLC and timed exclusives such as Rock Band. The first Rock Band was a simultaneous release and now all of sudden it comes 360 first and Microsoft realized Rock Band is a huge seller so they payed for that. How long can Microsoft capitalize on the 3rd party and how much are they willing to spend? It certainly cost a lot more to get a 3rd party to do favors then a 1st party that is already under your hood.

These 3rd party games are not going to be system sellers, but they are very compelling with the $199 arcade price. Frankly a 2006, 2007, 3rd party multiplatform game looks visually the same as 2008 and also what 2009 will look like. The gameplay is no different aside from a few gimmicks. What does Tekken 6 really do more than Virtua Fighter 4? What does Dead Space do more than Bioshock/Prey? This is why if a person just wants a solid next gen experience and they don't mind playing the generic games then the 360 is compelling at a cheap price. With the PS3 there's more potential, the games are more diverse, and the games make greater leaps visuals and also in gameplay. Killzone 2 arguably the best looking game for all of 2009 uses only 4.5 cores of the PS3's cell processor.

I do agree with your sentiment overall about pushing the envelope instead of just more of the same, however I do just see it as a "strategic difference" micro has adopted to be competitive. In other words who says micro NEEDS to own more dev studio's (like sony) to produce quality exclusives, when Gears itself is a great example of them just paying a 3rd party dev to make a awesome *exclusive game.... who cares HOW or WHERE micro got it from in the end all that really matters to the consumer(gamers) is that they get to play a great game, I don't see anything unethical or troublesome about that strategy.

Also you say:

"As it is it seems to me as though they're too focused on their competitor(s). Their mindset seems to be "We will provide you with the best content available."

No thats simply just NOT true when you look at the overall strength of their gaming library to date....its much more diverse than the original xbox, which was once their biggest criticism being labeled a "shooters" console. They've changed that stigma mostly and in doing so they also brought over some previously notable ps2 exclusives to further the idea of having the best and most diverse lineup available on any platform (subjective, but I believe thats the idea). I think there are plenty of examples of micro exclusives at least "trying" to push the industry or do things differently...some succeeded to an extent (Gears, -rodie run/cover system, benchmark in graphics) (Mass Effect -facial animation/interactivity) (Bioshock -gameplay/moral choices/atmosphere) (Halo -multiplayer depth/co-op gameplay) and some didn't quite live up to their full potential (Too Human -new control scheme) Now am I saying these games are totally new and innovative, NO but they all did up the ante a bit in their respective categories but in any case comparatively speaking I don't see where they've dissapointed in the gaming dept by NOT PUSHING the industry IF others have succeeded. Also why do we act as if this is a brand new concept first adopted by micro, sony did the exact same thing with the ps brand, they had a few great 1st party exclusives but also benefited greatly from franchises that were once only on Nintendo platforms. Again its all about doing what works to grow your business model, getting popular 3rd party IP's available on your platform isn't a "me too" attitude its just practical business because obviously those games sell well, at the same time this does not mean micro is only focused on old ps IP's, no its simply one facet of their strategy so far not the entire scope, which again is evident if you actually judge by their current gaming library compared to the competition.

JOY

you get a bubble for being one of the better 360 guys on N4G. I remember the old you. Its like you was pretending to be a rabid fanboy but now your just a guy with a preferance for the 360 so kudos.

What you said about gears is a substantial point. You could only say gears and not a plethora of titles because 3rd parties seem like exclusive is a word that has to have some type of prefix like 'console' or 'timed'. MS are making strange decisions in terms of their identity and future imo.

I've been on my best behavior for quite some time, I promised myself no more getting drunk and ranting on n4g when I'm pissed off.

I come in peace, only to shed light where there is only darkness.

Bubbles to you, Sir.

JOY

Also comparing the library does not tell the whole story. The year headstart may mean a bigger library but how many of those games honesty are totally irrelevant now? Sony's library is catching up quickly even after a year delay. Sony has a game type that MS does not have which is the in between game titles like siren, tekken DR, WipeoutHD etc. MS has nothing to counter that plus sony have many studios so it wont be long before there are actually more games on the ps3 than the 360 and a good proportion of those games will be TRUE exclusives making the library thing redundant.

oh

'and you speak sooo well', lol

Well of course you CAN compare the entire library, micro had a yr head start, but so what....it is what is which means right now their library is in fact more diverse, you can't penalize micro for getting the jump on the competition, just like you can't say RROD problems never existed, "take the good with the bad". Also if you ask how many of them are "irrevelant" now then we can ask the same of some past decent sony exclusives like R&C, you see what I mean?

Then you say sony's library is catching up, maybe it is but whats so impressive about those games you mentioned like WipeoutHD as opposed to the titles already on or coming to the 360?, hell I still think Forza 2 with its physics and customization is the best racer I ever played, in other words "to each his own".

And whats a "True" exclusive?, oh are you saying its only a true exclusive if its made by 1st party devs? NO, if micro pays a 3rd party studio to create a new IP, they are buying the rights so its their IP not the studios, so again its possible for them to get a fair share of their *exclusives simply by paying for them as oppose to sony having most exclusives dev'd in house, why do I care if the game is 1st party or not, as long as its good, right? hell I don't care if they only pay for timed exclusives, I have both consoles but I'm still going to play it day one on whichever console it hits first.

JOY

Well, I'm not saying that Microsoft NEEDS to do anything really. All I was really talking about is what I personally would like to see and what I feel is good for the industry as a whole. I agree that where great games come from doesn't really matter as long as it's reaching the consumers... but as it seems to be happening third-party exclusives are becoming slim and we're starting to see alot of titles appear on several platforms. The way I look at it... those games from third-parties will be made (granted they have the budget to create the game themselves) regardless.

While those games may exist... why not come out with your own? That's what I meant when I was talking about the way they use their resources. I'd rather see them fathering a new studio and/or putting that towards the development of new IPs. They don't NEED to do this... but I feel it would be to their and the consumer's benefit. You can always take some fish out of the pond but if you throw in some of your own then you're creating growth within the industry and giving gamers even more.

As for where you quoted me... I think I just wasn't clear enough. The above is all I really meant. I don't think it's 'wrong' that they've gone after some franchises previously associated with the Playstation brand. It's a smart business move for sure... but it simply falls back on my desire to see them contribute more 'in-house' titles. Nintendo and Sony have such a strong first (and second) party and I think Microsoft should work on improving theirs in this age where third-parties aren't as likely to focus on just one console. First party games are more important than ever when it comes to defining a console.

I agree with alot of what you said and you do make good points... but I think maybe I just wasn't as clear as I could have been in my first comment. I was doing other things and kind of rushing a bit. Hopefully you have a better understanding now. I meant in no way to say that Microsoft hasn't improved greatly from the original xbox. In terms of getting gamers quality content and variety I think they've very much suceeded. My comment was less criticism and more like... my hopes for them I suppose you could say. I'd just rather not see two consoles I own start to blend together in terms of the games where they become less distinguishable. I'm not saying that it is happening or will happen... it's just something I'd rather not see.

And I tried to keep it strictly about Microsoft for that comment (may have wavered a bit) because I feel there's alot of could say about all 3 and my posts already run long enough. That, and I don't always have time to address every matter I'd like. Still I like to contribute my thoughts whenever I can.

Fantastic comment Tacki. I completely agree.

i mean not timed. I dont mind it being console exclusive and on pc like gears which i still consider a true exclusive, some dont but i do.

The games that fall into the category im on about are ones such as bishock, lost planet, eternal sonata UT4 etc. Gears, Mass effect, Forza, Drakes, Wipeout, Heavenly sword, Gran Turismo are the true exclusives im on about and when you weigh those up its clear that most of the titles mentioned are 1st/2nd party. Its an exception that 3rd part games will be total/true exclusives therefore MS and Sony like Nintendo have to rely on themselves to differentiate themselves by producing them themselves.

Dont get me wrong, my irrelevant games are the ones that have already been followed up like GRAW, COD3 FIFA 07 etc not 'one aways' like mass effect heavenly sword or R+C. If we done the library like you kinda suggested with 08 titles only then sony has released more but thats not either of our points. Im just saying that the thing that will seperate one from the other is the exclusives and i feel MS might be hurting themselves in the long run if they continue with their current model

uhm, OK I get where you're coming from in fact, I read the whole thing twice looking for something to disagree with but I just couldn't find anything....its hard to disagree with a sensible common sense response so I've given up on you. What better way to pop my last bubble.

Good day, Sir.

Edit: @why o why vvvvv, I kind of agree with you but I don't know if micro is hurting themselves in the long run, this could be a short term strategy, micro could be right around the corner from buying or starting a few internal dev studio's. Who knows what will be announced in the future but remember although micro aren't some small time company they are still essentially the underdog still fighting against two heavyweights like Ninty and Sony so in the short term they need to keep the momentum of delivering great games anyway they can until their brand gains the right amount of creditability worldwide= imo.

JOY

JOY, some of your past comments I couldn't agree with, but at least they were (generally!) well reasoned and could never be categorised as rabid fan boy! :)

Bubble up as your point of view in this topic is interesting.

You must compare the entire library of all systems of the one generation no matter the difference in launch period.

Because it's the entire library that a consumer would be looking at, not the '2nd year' library.

The release date of the console is no argument for or against quality games. If they didn't want the competitor to be ahead then they should've released earlier.

Exactly call the wii next generation. It is more like almost next gen.