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."
well... theres Halo (it's about to become a series...) and.... MachWorrior.... uh...Age of Empires.. and um...Halo... OOOHH and Marathon... wait no, that was bungie pre-Microsoft... um... they've still got Halo and MW though :)
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
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.
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?
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.
With the Xbox, Microsoft is following the same model they do with Windows. That is, allow other people to develop an idea and see how it pans out, then either copy it themselves or buy out people who can do it for them.
Nintendo's stuff isn't really niche. The average Nintendo game sells better than what 90%+ of games sell. A lot of their stuff is rather mainstream... but mainstream for Japan, less so for the US. But you can't say Smash Bros and Mario Kart aren't mainstream in the US.
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.
FPS games sell huge numbers in the US. Not elsewhere.
The Xbox wins if you're big on FPS games or online gaming (which most people aren't, or the Xbox would be selling better).
PS2 wins if you're big on RPGs or games that require extras (i.e. dancepad).
GameCube wins on platformers, and adventures like Zelda. And on party games.
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.
Play a Super Nintendo or early N64 era Rare game. Then play a late N64 era Rare game (Conker excluded) or Star Fox Adventures. There's a huge drop in quality. There was also a huge increase in budget and development time. Most members of the GoldenEye and Perfect Dark teams left. A bunch more people left when Microsoft bought the company. Microsoft didn't get much out of the deal.
This is a big difference, cause it is the reason Nintendo basically denies the existence (and refuses to invest in) online gaming.
Nintendo won't invest in online gaming because no one wants to pay to play online. And not many people want to play online to begin with. That said, I do think they should invest in it anyway. People buy products based on what they might possibly want to do with it, not based on what they will do with it. That, and it would shut up the people who bitch and bitch until they convince other people not to buy a GameCube because of it.
You mean mainstream hits like Kakuto Chojin (fighting, flopped, got recalled), Fusion Frenzy (party, flopped), Blinx the Time Sweeper (platformer, flopped), and Sneakers (action platformer, flopped), or Microsoft's first party sports titles, which sell and play like crap?
Compare it with the 'niche' titles from Nintendo like Luigi's Mansion (over 1 million sold worldwide), Super Smash Bros. Melee (well over 1 million sold worldwide), The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (over 1 million sold worldwide, hell over 1 million sold in North America alone), Super Mario Sunshine (over 1 million sold worldwide), Metroid Prime (well over half a million, if not over 1 million sold worldwide), and this doesn't include the GBA first party titles, like Pokemon Ruby and Sapphire which have sold over 3 million combined in Japan alone, plus whatever outrageous number in the North America, or the Zelda and Super Mario Advance games which sell absurdly.
Last I checked, million plus selling games weren't 'niche', on any console. The only 2 Nintendo first party game, released worldwide by Nintendo on the GameCube, that can be called niche because of their genre/type are Pikmin, and Animal Crossing (the latter not yet released in Europe, but has also sold over 1 million units between North America and Japan).
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.
I can agree that there're gaps, especially in releases of Nintendo first party games. And that the GC doesn't have an exclusive FPS (I don't consider Metroid Prime a FPS with it's definite Action/Adventure elements), but TimeSplitters 2, and some others are on it. As for sports, Nintendo doesn't have a great sports lineup, especially of exclusives. But, most Nintendo fans don't buy sports games for their Nintendo consoles.
The difference being Microsoft's first party and exclusive third party games seem to be lacking (Halo and KotOR not included), both in overall appeal and quality.
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.
Hrm, let's see. The most eagerly awaited Rare game, Perfect Dark Zero, has been given a release date of 2006., and may not appear on this Xbox. The game they were working on for the past three years, Kameo: Elements of Power is supposedly coming out this December--but expect it to slip. StarFox Adventures was an overall disappointment to most who played it (but it sure looked pretty). And the first game they're releasing on the Xbox is a game that was considered the laughinstock of their showing at E3, Grabbed by the Ghoulies.
Add in that many of the GoldenEye 007 team left to form Free Radical (Timesplitters 1&2), and a bunch of others, including many who worked on Perfect Dark left to form another studio (now working on an exclusive GC game); and it doesn't look like Nintnedo lost out by not buying Rare.
Ultimate goal's are totally different. Nintendo's ultimate goal is to be what they were. They want to sell video games.
Perish the thought! A video game maker wanting to sell video games? PREPOSTEROUS!!!!
Microsoft on the other hand wants to make sure its monopoly extends from the PC to the TV.
You mean convicted illegal monopolies don't do things out of