All they pretty much need is a AAAAE...
MS needs to step up their game...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="kyacat"]Would like to see Microsoft get more platformers dachase
and they almost had one of the best until some idiot thought it was a good idea to add a vehicle builder to it
Yeah, ain't that a *****? What was Rare smoking when they decided to cut out most of the original gameplay for something that has NOTHING to do with Banjo-Kazooie? I'm betting that they did it to tease the fans, and if they did then **** them.[QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]Agreed. Microsoft really needs to get more 1st party studios, especially since they've lost Bungie, Bizzare Studios and Ensemble Studios. They had a decent about when the released the original XBox, but it seems Microsoft relied more on 3rd party companies this generation instead of 1st and 2nd party companies. I'd say they need at least 3-4 more studios. no, they dont. Why do you care if your exclusive is coming from a first or third party? The 360 has a better lineup WITHOUT first party support, so who cares? They can close every single first party studio as far as i'm concerned. Weather you pay for an exlclusive, or pay to make the exclusive, your paying for us 360 owners, and NOT ps3 owners, to have an amazing game.Honestly, I think all three need to step their game up. MS needs to step their First party up, SONY needs to step PSN up, adn wii needs to step their games up.
blackace
I think what all of you have forgotten is what MS has done. They have accomplished what they needed to this gen already and that was to take market share and a big chunck at that. They took some high praise exclusives from the Playstation brand, Tekken, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, I mean was Assassins Creed at one point PS3 only? Ace Combat, and now a new Metal Gear Solid series. I mean the list goes on and on. The 360 did what it needed to do, so far it has had some great new ips and has paved its way into the 3rd party scene taking a lot from the PS3. MS didn't have to make a whole bunch of new ips as they are doing just fine with what they have done. They have sold 30 million more consoles then what they did all of last generation and this one isn't even over. Lets wait and see as time will tell. Three things matter in reality sales, community, and service. All three in my opinion were accomplished by the 360.
Yes, link is here.I think what all of you have forgotten is what MS has done. They have accomplished what they needed to this gen already and that was to take market share and a big chunck at that. They took some high praise exclusives from the Playstation brand, Tekken, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, I mean was Assassins Creed at one point PS3 only? Ace Combat, and now a new Metal Gear Solid series. I mean the list goes on and on. The 360 did what it needed to do, so far it has had some great new ips and has paved its way into the 3rd party scene taking a lot from the PS3. MS didn't have to make a whole bunch of new ips as they are doing just fine with what they have done. They have sold 30 million more consoles then what they did all of last generation and this one isn't even over. Lets wait and see as time will tell. Three things matter in reality sales, community, and service. All three in my opinion were accomplished by the 360.
xscrapzx
Nothing will stop Sony's first party offerings from now on, they are just throwing games and game announcements one after the other.
We just witnesses LBP 2 and KZ3 and there are rumors of uncharted 3 spreading right in this very moment.
Then there is The Last Guardian and probably Resistance 3, WarHawk 2 and other games I can't remember, they just don't have any sign of stopping and I like that, I need moar games.
MS needs to step up their game indeed.
[QUOTE="N00bTuber"]They have so far..... They have not according to the general critical view which I agree with.I agree with the vast majority of posters, the PS3 and Sony is pretty much unstoppable now, MS needs to try to step up their game but I don't see how they could possibly outdo Sony. Imo ofc.
xscrapzx
I agree with the vast majority of posters, the PS3 and Sony is pretty much unstoppable now, MS needs to try to step up their game but I don't see how they could possibly outdo Sony. Imo ofc.
They have so far..... They have not according to the general critical view which I agree with. What has PS3 done to show that it is unstoppable, and what has MS shown thus far that it wont be able to outdo or hasn't already shown that it has.[QUOTE="N00bTuber"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"] They have so far.....xscrapzxThey have not according to the general critical view which I agree with. What has PS3 done to show that it is unstoppable, and what has MS shown thus far that it wont be able to outdo or hasn't already shown that it has. Just the sheer amount of studios dev'ing games for the PS3 in camparison to the deals MS has been working out here in there, no match really, Sony has a constant stream of high quality titles guaranteed for the rest of this generation, MS is really inconsitant and is always looking for that deal to make an excluisve PS or PC game multiplat or something. The PS3 is destroying the 360 imo ofc.
[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="N00bTuber"] They have not according to the general critical view which I agree with.N00bTuberWhat has PS3 done to show that it is unstoppable, and what has MS shown thus far that it wont be able to outdo or hasn't already shown that it has. Just the sheer amount of studios dev'ing games for the PS3 in camparison to the deals MS has been working out here in there, no match really, Sony has a constant stream of high quality titles guaranteed for the rest of this generation, MS is really inconsitant and is always looking for that deal to make an excluisve PS or PC game multiplat or something. The PS3 is destroying the 360 imo ofc. MS has been inconsistent, how so? Has MS not published 3 AAA games in the past 10 months or so? Do multiplats continue to sell better on the 360 then PS3? They both have the same amount of AAAE titles. This generation is not over, E3 still hasn't come. so we have no idea what MS has up its sleeve. The 360 has sold more consoles then the PS3 has. So again how is it destorying the 360 as you say?
[QUOTE="blackace"][QUOTE="XboximusPrime"]Agreed. Microsoft really needs to get more 1st party studios, especially since they've lost Bungie, Bizzare Studios and Ensemble Studios. They had a decent about when the released the original XBox, but it seems Microsoft relied more on 3rd party companies this generation instead of 1st and 2nd party companies. I'd say they need at least 3-4 more studios. no, they dont. Why do you care if your exclusive is coming from a first or third party? The 360 has a better lineup WITHOUT first party support, so who cares? They can close every single first party studio as far as i'm concerned. Weather you pay for an exlclusive, or pay to make the exclusive, your paying for us 360 owners, and NOT ps3 owners, to have an amazing game.That, to me, seems a rather bizarre mentality.Honestly, I think all three need to step their game up. MS needs to step their First party up, SONY needs to step PSN up, adn wii needs to step their games up.
fastr
There is a difference between paying for (usually timed) exclusivity for games, like with the GTAIV Episodes, or for DLC, which otherwise would have been multiplatform, and paying to finance and publish games that otherwise would not have been made.
Anyone would think that more quality games overall, is of better value to gamers than a temporary E on the spreadsheet or getting a map-pack a week or month before the other console.
Last gen, Sony did not need to develop a strong ensemble of first party studios and second party relationships, which resulted in games like Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Jak and Daxter, etc.
no, they dont. Why do you care if your exclusive is coming from a first or third party? The 360 has a better lineup WITHOUT first party support, so who cares? They can close every single first party studio as far as i'm concerned. Weather you pay for an exlclusive, or pay to make the exclusive, your paying for us 360 owners, and NOT ps3 owners, to have an amazing game.That, to me, seems a rather bizarre mentality.[QUOTE="fastr"][QUOTE="blackace"] Agreed. Microsoft really needs to get more 1st party studios, especially since they've lost Bungie, Bizzare Studios and Ensemble Studios. They had a decent about when the released the original XBox, but it seems Microsoft relied more on 3rd party companies this generation instead of 1st and 2nd party companies. I'd say they need at least 3-4 more studios. shinrabanshou
There is a difference between paying for (usually timed) exclusivity for games, like with the GTAIV Episodes, or for DLC, which otherwise would have been multiplatform, and paying to finance and publish games that otherwise would not have been made.
Anyone would think that more quality games overall, is of better value to gamers than a temporary E on the spreadsheet or getting a map-pack a week or month before the other console.
Last gen, Sony did not need to develop a strong ensemble of first party studios and second party relationships, which resulted in games like Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Jak and Daxter, etc.
I don't care who makes gears of war or Mass effect, fact is my 360 can play them and your ps3 can't. I understand why as a cow you would not take that into consideration, but the general public does, which is why 360 games outsell ps3 games, and they are ahead by 5 million systems.[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]That, to me, seems a rather bizarre mentality.[QUOTE="fastr"] no, they dont. Why do you care if your exclusive is coming from a first or third party? The 360 has a better lineup WITHOUT first party support, so who cares? They can close every single first party studio as far as i'm concerned. Weather you pay for an exlclusive, or pay to make the exclusive, your paying for us 360 owners, and NOT ps3 owners, to have an amazing game.fastr
There is a difference between paying for (usually timed) exclusivity for games, like with the GTAIV Episodes, or for DLC, which otherwise would have been multiplatform, and paying to finance and publish games that otherwise would not have been made.
Anyone would think that more quality games overall, is of better value to gamers than a temporary E on the spreadsheet or getting a map-pack a week or month before the other console.
Last gen, Sony did not need to develop a strong ensemble of first party studios and second party relationships, which resulted in games like Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Jak and Daxter, etc.
I don't care who makes gears of war or Mass effect, fact is my 360 can play them and your ps3 can't. I understand why as a cow you would not take that into consideration, but the general public does, which is why 360 games outsell ps3 games, and they are ahead by 5 million systems. What a strangely aggressive response to a not particularly aggressive post.All I pointed out is that it's better for gamers as a whole if Microsoft invests in first party studios to develop new IPs or funds IPs like Alan Wake through second party relationships, than if it pays for temporary exclusivity for games that would have been made anyway, like Episodes, or for earlier map-packs even though it may not need to invest in first party studios and second party relationships.
But rage away all you want.
I don't care who makes gears of war or Mass effect, fact is my 360 can play them and your ps3 can't. I understand why as a cow you would not take that into consideration, but the general public does, which is why 360 games outsell ps3 games, and they are ahead by 5 million systems. What a strangely aggressive response to a not particularly aggressive post.[QUOTE="fastr"][QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]That, to me, seems a rather bizarre mentality.
There is a difference between paying for (usually timed) exclusivity for games, like with the GTAIV Episodes, or for DLC, which otherwise would have been multiplatform, and paying to finance and publish games that otherwise would not have been made.
Anyone would think that more quality games overall, is of better value to gamers than a temporary E on the spreadsheet or getting a map-pack a week or month before the other console.
Last gen, Sony did not need to develop a strong ensemble of first party studios and second party relationships, which resulted in games like Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War, Jak and Daxter, etc.
shinrabanshou
All I pointed out is that it's better for gamers as a whole if Microsoft invests in first party studios to develop new IPs or funds IPs like Alan Wake through second party relationships, than if it pays for temporary exclusivity for games that would have been made anyway, like Episodes, or for earlier map-packs even though it may not need to invest in first party studios and second party relationships.
But rage away all you want.
You keep saying temporary, sooo.. gears is on the ps3 now? fable? Halo? Alan Wake, SCC?[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]What a strangely aggressive response to a not particularly aggressive post.[QUOTE="fastr"] I don't care who makes gears of war or Mass effect, fact is my 360 can play them and your ps3 can't. I understand why as a cow you would not take that into consideration, but the general public does, which is why 360 games outsell ps3 games, and they are ahead by 5 million systems. fastr
All I pointed out is that it's better for gamers as a whole if Microsoft invests in first party studios to develop new IPs or funds IPs like Alan Wake through second party relationships, than if it pays for temporary exclusivity for games that would have been made anyway, like Episodes, or for earlier map-packs even though it may not need to invest in first party studios and second party relationships.
But rage away all you want.
You keep saying temporary, sooo.. gears is on the ps3 now? fable? Halo? Alan Wake, SCC? I didn't refer to Gears of War in my initial post did I?Something like Fable is good. First party studios are good. Something like Gears of War is good. Something like Alan Wake is good. Second party relationships are good. Follow?
You said they don't need to improve their first party studios, nor even have them and can just close up shop.
I find that a strange mentality, as it is overall better for gamers as a whole for Microsoft to invest in first party studios (or second party relationships), which they don't seem to be doing as much as they could be.
You said they don't need to, I gave an example of why it shouldn't be about the "need" to do so.
I don't see why anybody wouldn't think it would be a good thing for Microsoft to have a larger ensemble of first party studios with a greater output of games.
Honestly, I think all three need to step their game up. MS needs to step their First party up, SONY needs to step PSN up, adn wii needs to step their games up.
Agreed. Microsoft really needs to get more 1st party studios, especially since they've lost Bungie, Bizzare Studios and Ensemble Studios. They had a decent about when the released the original XBox, but it seems Microsoft relied more on 3rd party companies this generation instead of 1st and 2nd party companies. I'd say they need at least 3-4 more studios. Why? Have you not been seeing what has happened this generation? It was a brilliant idea what MS did. They took 3rd party support and got it on their side of the court as well instead of just letting sit in Sony's lap this whole generation like it did the one before. They needed to get their hands on games like GTA, Tekken, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, these games made Sony big the last few generations and set them apart form the competition. MS took a huge risk threw some dough out here and there, made a new console before anyone else did and it paid off. They gained a good chunk of market share and got some of the biggest games that were only known on a PS brand console. Why all of sudden something that has been working, going on for 6 years now, now has to change to just 1st party support. Makes no sense.You keep saying temporary, sooo.. gears is on the ps3 now? fable? Halo? Alan Wake, SCC? I didn't refer to Gears of War in my initial post did I?[QUOTE="fastr"][QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]What a strangely aggressive response to a not particularly aggressive post.
All I pointed out is that it's better for gamers as a whole if Microsoft invests in first party studios to develop new IPs or funds IPs like Alan Wake through second party relationships, than if it pays for temporary exclusivity for games that would have been made anyway, like Episodes, or for earlier map-packs even though it may not need to invest in first party studios and second party relationships.
But rage away all you want.
shinrabanshou
Something like Fable is good. First party studios are good. Something like Gears of War is good. Something like Alan Wake is good. Second party relationships are good. Follow?
You said they don't need to improve their first party studios, nor even have them and can just close up shop.
I find that a strange mentality, as it is overall better for gamers as a whole for Microsoft to invest in first party studios (or second party relationships), which they don't seem to be doing as much as they could be.
You said they don't need to, I gave an example of why it shouldn't be about the "need" to do so.
You realize games can be developed without sony or MS or nintendo paying for them right? Shadow, god of war, games like that could be made even if it wasn't a first party studio. There are other companies out there financing and making these games. Who says its overall better? you? How do we know god of war wouldn't have been better if they weren't tied to sony? So no, no one "needs" first party studios, you only act like MS does because Sony does, for what, 3d dot hero? heavy rain? Little big planet? nah.. you can keep your first party studios, maybe if they weren't tied to Sony they would have made better games.[QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]I didn't refer to Gears of War in my initial post did I?[QUOTE="fastr"] You keep saying temporary, sooo.. gears is on the ps3 now? fable? Halo? Alan Wake, SCC? fastr
Something like Fable is good. First party studios are good. Something like Gears of War is good. Something like Alan Wake is good. Second party relationships are good. Follow?
You said they don't need to improve their first party studios, nor even have them and can just close up shop.
I find that a strange mentality, as it is overall better for gamers as a whole for Microsoft to invest in first party studios (or second party relationships), which they don't seem to be doing as much as they could be.
You said they don't need to, I gave an example of why it shouldn't be about the "need" to do so.
You realize games can be developed without sony or MS or nintendo paying for them right? Shadow, god of war, games like that could be made even if it wasn't a first party studio. There are other companies out there financing and making these games. Who says its overall better? you? How do we know god of war wouldn't have been better if they weren't tied to sony? So no, no one "needs" first party studios, you only act like MS does because Sony does, for what, 3d dot hero? heavy rain? Little big planet? nah.. you can keep your first party studios, maybe if they weren't tied to Sony they would have made better games. Shadow of the Colossus and God of War were both made by first party studios, ergo they wouldn't have been made. I can say God of War wouldn't have been better because it wouldn't have existed.Again I didn't say anyone "needs" to have first party studios. I said I found it a strange mentality to think that there needs to be a "need."
I'll reiterate: I don't see why anybody wouldn't think it would be a good thing for Microsoft to have a larger ensemble of first party studios with a greater output of games.
But do feel free to keep raging away.
You realize games can be developed without sony or MS or nintendo paying for them right? Shadow, god of war, games like that could be made even if it wasn't a first party studio. There are other companies out there financing and making these games. Who says its overall better? you? How do we know god of war wouldn't have been better if they weren't tied to sony? So no, no one "needs" first party studios, you only act like MS does because Sony does, for what, 3d dot hero? heavy rain? Little big planet? nah.. you can keep your first party studios, maybe if they weren't tied to Sony they would have made better games. Shadow of the Colossus and God of War were both made by first party studios, ergo they wouldn't have been made. I can say God of War wouldn't have been better because it wouldn't have existed.[QUOTE="fastr"][QUOTE="shinrabanshou"]I didn't refer to Gears of War in my initial post did I?
Something like Fable is good. First party studios are good. Something like Gears of War is good. Something like Alan Wake is good. Second party relationships are good. Follow?
You said they don't need to improve their first party studios, nor even have them and can just close up shop.
I find that a strange mentality, as it is overall better for gamers as a whole for Microsoft to invest in first party studios (or second party relationships), which they don't seem to be doing as much as they could be.
You said they don't need to, I gave an example of why it shouldn't be about the "need" to do so.
shinrabanshou
Again I didn't say anyone "needs" to have first party studios. I said I found it a strange mentality to think that there needs to be a "need."
I'll reiterate: I don't see why anybody wouldn't think it would be a good thing for Microsoft to have a larger ensemble of first party studios with a greater output of games.
But do feel free to keep raging away.
Yet again you fail to realize other studios can make games. if that studio wasn't owned by Sony, that doesn't mean the game can't be made. But feel free to keep living in your fantasy world.The 360 has -Crackdown 2
-Alan Wake
-Halo: ReachThe PS3 has
-God of War 3
-Heavy Rain
-The Last Gaurdian
360 doesn't seem so bad off by comparison.vashkey
You're missing quite a few PS3 games.
[QUOTE="vashkey"]
The 360 has
-Crackdown 2
-Alan Wake
-Halo: Reach-Fable 3
-Splinter Cell: Conviction
The PS3 has
-God of War 3
-Heavy Rain
-The Last Gaurdian-Gran Turismo 5(provided it doesn't get delayed yet again)
360 doesn't seem so bad off by comparison.Silverbond
You're missing quite a few PS3 games.
And they are? Imissing quite a few on both sides. I decided to only mention the big ones.Yet again you fail to realize other studios can make games. if that studio wasn't owned by Sony, that doesn't mean the game can't be made. But feel free to keep living in your fantasy world. fastrI'm not failing to realise that other studios can make games. I'm well aware they do. I'm assuming we're still referring to God of War here, and Santa Monica Studio? If the studio wasn't owned by Sony it wouldn't exist, since it was founded by Sony, ergo if the studio wasn't owned by Sony, the game wouldn't exist. Are you still following?
You seem to want to make this a Sony vs Microsoft thing, but Sony's first party was just one example one can use, one can easily substitute Sony with Nintendo and use Super Mario Galaxy or Twilight Princess or any other game as an example. Maybe Sega as well.
You seem to be under the illusion that a system either has to have third party or first party games and that the two can't exist in symbiosis.
Could you elaborate on why it would be a bad thing for Microsoft to invest in first party studios? Nota bene, I'm not asking or referring to any particular need to invest in first party studios. Alternatively, you could detail why it would be a good thing for Microsoft to not invest in first party studios and simply close them all down.
I'm not failing to realise that other studios can make games. I'm well aware they do. I'm assuming we're still referring to God of War here, and Santa Monica Studio? If the studio wasn't owned by Sony it wouldn't exist, since it was founded by Sony, ergo if the studio wasn't owned by Sony, the game wouldn't exist. Are you still following?[QUOTE="fastr"]Yet again you fail to realize other studios can make games. if that studio wasn't owned by Sony, that doesn't mean the game can't be made. But feel free to keep living in your fantasy world. shinrabanshou
You seem to want to make this a Sony vs Microsoft thing, but Sony's first party was just one example one can use, one can easily substitute Sony with Nintendo and use Super Mario Galaxy or Twilight Princess or any other game as an example. Maybe Sega as well.
You seem to be under the illusion that a system either has to have third party or first party games and that the two can't exist in symbiosis.
Could you elaborate on why it would be a bad thing for Microsoft to invest in first party studios? Nota bene, I'm not asking or referring to any particular need to invest in first party studios.
I never said it couldn't, or shouldn't, I just don't care either way. If great games keep getting pumped out, I don't care where they are coming from.
You forgot ninety nights 2,kyacat
obsession concerning actors and actresses may be considered a little creepy and stalkish to the rest of us !..
Perhaps join a movie site ?
I wonder how many exlcusives PS3 has left anymore
Square - 360
Insomniac - 360
MGS - 360
There is not much left TBH, why would 360 that still has its exclusives like Fable 3, Mass Effect 3, Halo Reach, Rareware games, Aalan Wake etc intact do anything?
And gets nearly all big name Sony games and nearly all best PC games too, and at 1/2 the price, with full BC too, unlike PS3
Frankly, it is the comptition that needs to do something and fast, before die out
Do you forget that multiplatform games are also on the 360? And to add fuel to the fire, almost always sell significantly better on the 360 than the PS3?DonPerian
And 90% of them play and look better on 360, latest beeing RDR with the vast difference in visuals
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment