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:Easier Said than Done

[Hes Nikke]

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 :)

Microsoft is like Nintendo with a brain

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Microsoft is like Nintendo with a brain

[edwdig]

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.

the right idea

[August_zero]

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.