[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]
I'd say less than half, at any given time, considering how the mostly kill them off, or canibalize them and turn them into Mii-clothing sweatshops and such... Sony has a ton of studios that regularly put out AA+ games... MS has... Turn10. And... that's about it. Bungie is gone, Gears isn't first party... I suppose 343, but they haven't proven themselves yet. Other than Gears/Halo/Forza, pretty much all the AA+ in the past 2 years are Kinect games, and mostly third party. So, yeah, you hit the nail on the head, lack of studios is indeed the reason for the lack of exclusives... To me, as a gamer, they are the same thing. It doesn't matter if the problem is lack of games, or if the lack of games is just a symptom, and the problem is lack of studios... either way, even if they didn't have plenty to throw around already, MS is pulling in plenty from Live fees, so there's no excuse for them to not invest some of that in building their first party up. Therefore, as a gamer, their lack of first party devs does not excuse their lack of exclusives.
waltefmoney
And you also missed the point(or ignored it). Even if all the things you said are true, the two systems are still even in quality exclusives. So either Sony's first party isn't that good and keep releasing sub AAE games or the difference in exclusives really isn't that big.
I ignored it, because it's a gross over simplification. For your edification, I'll address it now. You're not taking into account AAE+ games that aren't first party... GRAW, Ridge Racer 6, DOA4, MotoGP 06, Dead Rising, St's Row, Ace Combat 6, Culdcept Saga, Gears 2, Scene it? BOS, Alan Wake, Dance Central, Gears 3, Sesame St, Dance Central 2... Over half (15) of 360's 29 AAE+ games. Versus... Maybe 7 of PS3's 29 AAE+. Meaning, MS's first party studios, including ones they've since shut-down or split ways with, pumped out about 14 AAE+ games in 6 years. 2.3 games a year, and Sony's managed 22 in 5 years, 4.4 a year.360 being tied (for the moment) doesn't indicate Sony's first party is "not that good" it mostly has to do with an extra year to release games (which is 20% longer, at this stage), and also benefits them by gaining a few third party exclusives that were exclusive only because the PS3 wasn't out, or they didn't have long enough with the dev kits (in the same way a lot of 360's numerical advantage in multiplats results from PS2 games that got 360 ports but not PS3, simply because the 360 was out a year earlier), and more recently, a few third party Kinect games (3/4 AAE Kinect games are not first party. The one that is, only is because MS bought the dev after the game came came out).
If MS had as many and/or as good of first party studios, would they have more AAE+ games in 6 years vs 5? Yeah, I should hope so. I didn't pick PS3 because it had more good exclusives. At the time I got it, it didn't, obviously (Jan 07). But I knew Sony had a history of having a better first party, releasing more new IPs, investing in building up developer's, etc., so I predicted that by the end of the two systems' respective life cycles, PS3 would have more, and probably a LOT more that catered to my tastes. MS could have proven me wrong, but rather than invest the truckloads of Live revenue in aquiring/building studios, they use it to fund half a million dollar Kinect media campaign, secure timed exclusive DLC deals, and things of that nature to give a temporary advantage. It's good business... but is of no value to me as a gamer, resulting in me feeling quite confident that I made the right choice (for me).
Log in to comment