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."
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
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.
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?
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?
"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?