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."

Comments

Re:the right idea

[the_riaa]

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.

And after playing both of those games, Tube Slider and F-Zero GX, you have to applaud Nintendo for making the right move. Tube Slider is horrible compared to the Sega output, and I for one applaud Nintendo's choice for quality over the quick money - if Tube Slider would've been called F-Zero, it would've sold a ton of titles on name alone. I am glad it didn't.

Re:Proof is in the Pudding

[Guppy06]

"Mechwarrior 1,2,3 (sarcasm intended)"

ActiVision, ActiVision, and a collaboration between ActiVision, FASA Interactive and Microsoft.

Forget MechWarrior, forget MechCommander, why did Microsoft have to give the axe to a straight, well-done translation of BattleTech?