Slashdot Mirror
Xbox - Borrowing Nintendo's First-Party Model?
Thanks to Gamesindustry.biz for their interview with Xbox VP for game publishing, Ed Fries, in which Microsoft's attitude to first-party game development is discussed. It's revealed that "Microsoft is internally... developing between 35 and 40 Xbox titles", and Fries comments on taking creative risks: "In the beginning, you had people like Seamus [Blackley] and me talking about artistry in game design and so on, but some of that collides with the realities of the games industry." The piece suggests, that with "almost every key third party title available on all three consoles" it's up to Microsoft themselves "...to provide the [internal-developed game] innovation and take some of the creative risks which change a good console into a great one", and ventures that, although Xbox has more third-party support, the "parallels with Nintendo's model are startling."
Similar to the story about XSN- their gaming network, I welcome this.
With EA keeping their paws off of Live, it IS up to Microsoft to create their own games. And as long as they utilize what makes the Xbox unique (Live for one thing) Xbox owners will benefit far more than just getting another version of Grand Theft Auto.
No reason to lie.
And not to knock Microsoft's attempt at doing this (I'd love to see them succeed - I'm always down with good new games), I'll wait to pass judgement until I actually see a good MS developed game. I just hope their new efforts are better than some of the past Xbox overhypes, like 'Blinx the Time Sweeper'. Because we all wondered what would happen when you cross Luigi's Mansion, a Cat, and a TiVo and made a game out of it.
The Kingdom of Retarsia
Hmmm.. Let's take a look at their Microsoft games website and see how original they are with PC games.... Flight Simulator 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc., Mechwarrior 1,2,3 (sarcasm intended).... Zoo Tycoon.... Links Golf, Halo.... Oh, they didn't make Halo... they bought out Bungie... Oh look, Bungie, I mean Microsoft's Inhouse development team is making Halo 2....
During an interview, it's not uncommon for VPs to gloss over and hype their upcoming products. The proof will be in the pudding with what they come out with. We will just have see how original they are. From their past history, it's just hyped vaporware.
I agree that Microsoft, in many ways, is going with the Nintendo model. Still, it differs Nintendo in a few major ways.
.........
Market driven from a development standpoint. Microsofts first party strategy is market driven. Nintendo seems to be driven solely by what game they want to make. Alot of Nintendo games are like niche movies (great, if you are into it, but most ain't). Microsoft shoots for mainstream hits every time.
No Gaps in the game lineup. Microsoft made sure that ASAP after the consoles launch or at launch that it had a game for every genre. Nintendo doesn't do this. The Gamecube still lacks a good first person shooter or exclusive sports games, both genres that sell huge numbers.
Ready to expand to fill weaknesses. Microsoft is ready to buy up anyone that can do what they can't. They bought game maker Rare to make Nintendo type games. Nintendo had the chance to buy this well established developer, but didn't.
Ultimate goal's are totally different. Nintendo's ultimate goal is to be what they were. They want to sell video games. Microsoft on the other hand wants to make sure its monopoly extends from the PC to the TV. This is a big difference, cause it is the reason Nintendo basically denies the existence (and refuses to invest in) online gaming. It's why Microsoft has a much better view on the future of gaming, overall.
Personally, I don't see a way Microsoft could lose with their gaming strategy in the long run. They are going to own gaming, it's just a matter of time. The machine is just too well oiled and has that immense bank to fall back on.
Buy Nintendo. Save Nintendo, and you get all their IP.
Sony can get away with not having a strong first party line up (though in the last year they are starting to do really well in house with titles like Ratchet and Clank, Dark Cloud 2 and so on) Nintendo exists almost solely on its first party software already. MS has neither Sonys saturation, nor Nintendos quality in house staff so they need to do the logical thing: boost their internal design teams.
Most 3rd party titles end up on all 3 platforms, and this hurts nintendo and MS more than it does sony because it doesn't convince anyone to run out and buy an x-box or cube to gain access to them, and most people that own a cube or a x-box already have a PS2.
Nintendo has had the right idea in this sense, they don't buy up large companies like MS tried to do with capcom and sega a year or so back, they look for small companies that have potential, share resources with them, and build them up. Take Rare for example, yeah they split with nintendo but that company wouldn't even likely be around today if not for the time and money nintendo spent turning them into a first class game company. Now they stand on their own (even if their last couple titles were not their best)
Not all of nintedos proteges pan out, the game "tube slider" by NEC Interchannel was going to be an F-zero title. nintendo wasn't happy with what NEC had managed to put together, so they cut them loose and gave the project to one of Sega's teams.
On Wall Street they say "buy low, sell high" On the pad we say, "buy high, sell high" Isn't that somehow better?
2. 40 versions of Halo? Sweet!
3. Microsoft? Artistic? *chuckle*
4. By internally developed software, you mean, buying a good software company, right?
5. And we know nobody reads the articles, but if they did I'm sure we'd hear something about this quote: "We're actually in the process of trying to do less things," Fries comments. "Less things, and even higher quality."
6. Or this one: That's no bad thing. Microsoft can rely on third party publishers to flesh out the various genres and provide the dull but nonetheless important cross platform support
Isn't that why they bought Bungie and other game developers in the first place? Why does it seem like this announcement is too obvious and too late? Am I a dork for not seeing why this is news?
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
they're across the street from each other. what do you expect?
grey wolf
LET FORTRAN DIE!
What does Seamus Blackley know about artistry and game design?
I know that when you first think about it, Sony doesn't really seem to have their game dev together. But they really do. Check out the A+ titles they've published throughout the lifespan of the PS2: ... and, there are the risky ones like Getaway, My Street, and Okage - but largely the first party lineup has done, at least critically, fairly well. I think it could be said that Sony has singlehandely done more recently for the platforming genre than anyone including Nintendo (and especially Microsoft). Jak, Sly, and Ratchet are not only great games, but they're quite possibly the best 3D platformers since Mario 64, and in some aspects even better.
ATV Offroad Fury, Frequency/Amplitude, Dark Cloud 2 (which you mentioned), Gran Turismo 3 (upcoming 4), Hot Shots 3, ICO, Jak & Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Sly Cooper, SOCOM, Mark of Kri, War of Monsters
Yes, their sports lineup is undoubtadly a huge joke. Additionally, their first party launch titles, which consisted of Fantavsion, was probably the most lackluster console launch. But they now have more hits than they do bombs, which, unless you're counting Halo as 15 hits, is far more than one can say about MS. And I *liked* Bloodwake!
I do disagree with you regarding your example of Nintendo and Rare. This is very much what Sony has done with Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, and much more unsuccessfully 989 Studios. I think Bungie is a prime example of MS replicating this, but I think MS tends to "outsource" their first party titles a little more than Sony and Nintendo. In terms of them buying out Sega and Capcom, that was all rumors and was never really substantiated. Hell, you could've spun a wheel and come up with a rumor than Company A was buying Company B.
Not in relation to your post August Zero, but to those that have chastised Microsoft for buying up bungie: how is that any different than Sony buying up Verant?
"parallels with Nintendo's model are startling."
Except Nintendo is making big money at it and Microsoft's X-Box unit is hemorraging money.
STOP ROCK VIDEO
Microsoft is internally... developing between 35 and 40 Xbox titles
How can they be developing between 35 and 40 titles? Doesn't it have to be 35, 40, or a number in between? How does Microsoft not know exactly how many games they are developing?
I'm confused...
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
The number one complaint about the xbox is that every game it comes for it eventually comes out for the PC or is already available in other system. Even games that are "landmarks" for the system like "Halo" are now available for PC .
When they say the "Nintendo strategy" they mean they are going to invest more money on products of their own so they can be xbox exclusive and not "portable" however this doesnt (theorically at least) mean they are going to do it themselves, more likely they are going to hunt for good teams and hire them to work under their name (not just license or fund their games) which is what nintendo is doing right now. Did you knew Warioware and Warioworld (and the original pokemon btw) were not developed by Nintendo "in house" teams?
Also they are going to keep hunting for more exclusives teams to build exclusive games for them they already did this with studio gigante and rare (MK6 is rumored to be an xbox xclusive, so Ed Boon and company might be on their sights, they also tried to book ID but they got refused) So their plan is to have a good number of (good) exclusive titles by next year.
Next year is going to be decisive for Xbox, they have their best line up ever with games that are just going to be available for this system (and high end PCs), so this is their chance to get ahold of a steady fan base and carry them along to the launch of their next console in 2005 (which is safe to assume will be backward compatible)
Only time will tell...
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
If you examine the first xbox games, you will notice most of them tried to be new franchises (blinx, malice , azurik, halo) but only one of them hit (one that wasnt so original btw) so they are changing that strategy. ;-)
If you examine the new xbox games you will notice they are using old (and not so old) succesful franchises for new games of their own (starcraft,ninja gaiden, conker,mortal kombat) thats the "nintendo strategy" in case you havent noticed it
Hey, this guys learn fast!
Go ahead MOD my day!
More opinions here
"Embrace and Extend" becomes "Embrace and hey, wait, this seems to work ok"?
The major appeal of the XBox is the power.
The whole philosophy is that it does games better.
But the change is so marginal that people don't want to change what they have. The real strategy for success is to focus on the fun you can have with an XBox. The power-edge has proven itself successful only in the USA by a scant margin. Elsehwhere it's glossed over. If MS would concentrate on what a majority of the consumers do, then they could hit it off.
Until then, I'm keeping my Cube and GBA. It serves me well.
http://www.emptylogic.com/suprnova/torrents/299/sm b3.torrent
Bittorrent file for an amazing video of Super Mario Bros 3. It's pretty sweet, I'm spreading the .torrent link everywhere that I can.