Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Xbox - Borrowing Nintendo's First-Party Model?

Posted by simoniker on from the best-software-comes-from-redmond? dept.

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."

2 of 45 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft is like Nintendo with a brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  2. Sony's in house games by superultra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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:
    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 ... 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.

    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?