Microsoft Admits to Release Schedule Bungle

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Admits to Release Schedule Bungle

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Wednesday October 18, 2006 @06:33AM from the more-games-faster dept.

Eurogamer is reporting on comments made by Microsoft Games Studio general manager Phil Spencer, who has said that first party titles were not released often enough during the 360's first year. While true in all markets, this has especially been a problem in the U.K., where a delay of 210 days separated Dead Rising and Nintey-Nine Nights. From the article: "'I won't duck the question. Obviously our job as a first-party publisher is to lead on our platform and to create content not only that appeals to a broad set of customers, but also content that comes out with a regular pacing to continue to freshen the shelves,' Spencer said. 'But I wouldn't disagree with you that there were periods this year where there were gaps that were too long from first-party.' Microsoft's gaming blackspot was mirrored by a paucity of heavyweight third-party releases over a particular barren summer during which the firm arguably failed to capitalise on good early momentum and the absence of Sony's rival PlayStation 3 system."

43 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Video game spam by SuperStretch · 2006-10-18 06:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

To be honest, besides NFS:MW and Halo 2, does anyone really play those other 360 titles?

--
Help me get a new laptop - http://nocreditcard.yourgiftsfree.com/?id=3012
1. Re:Video game spam by gEvil+(beta) · 2006-10-18 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  And Halo 2 isn't even a 360 title. Not to mention that NFS:MW is also available for just about every other platform out there, too.
  
  --
  This guy's the limit!
2. Re:Video game spam by SuperStretch · 2006-10-18 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  thats exactly what I mean.. Maybe some Project Gotham too..
  
  --
  Help me get a new laptop - http://nocreditcard.yourgiftsfree.com/?id=3012
3. Re:Video game spam by AcidLacedPenguiN · 2006-10-18 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Dead Rising is one of the best games in the last few years. Personally I also enjoy Chromehounds and Import Tuner Challenge. I did enjoy 99 Nights until it broke my 360 (their warranty program is absolutely amazing though, gave me a brand new machine in a matter of days)
  
  Though I do agree that the lineup has been fairly weak. In a whole year there should be too many good games to count on your fingers and toes.
  
  --
  disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
4. Re:Video game spam by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-18 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  The head guy behind Dead Rising had an interview in EGM where he was asked about the problems with the game text on non-HD sets and he said people shouldn't buy a 360 until they have an HD set. So instead of realizing that a lot of the market had a problem with the game, he arrogantly replied with a snide remark. I was actually thinking about picking up a 360 (I do have an HD set) after I got the Wii but have since decided not to specifically because of those remarks. I also won't be buying any more Capcom games.
5. Re:Video game spam by Ucklak · 2006-10-18 07:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  What exactly is 360 supposed to convey in the name XBox 360?
  
  I just read the tech specs and developers blog and can't find anything to the name.
  I can almost get that 360 is half of 720 and that the games will play at 720p but I think that is a stretch.
  The fact that some or all games are in surround sound is also a bit stretchy. Why would you name your console after your audio capabilities?
  Both the XBox and XBox 360 utilize 3D rendered graphics so that doesn't make any sense either.
  
  Someone told me that it was Microsoft copying Nintendo on the Revolution name - I can get that and it's almost believable. In fact it's more believable over the other ones I mentioned.
  
  They could have called it XBox Zingo and it would make more sense than XBox 360.
  Every time I hear 360 to convey the newest XBox brings back memories of the CD-i and 3DO. Granted that the 360 is more successful than the CD-i and 3DO combined but it still means a crappy marketing naming team behind it to me.
  
  --
  if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
6. Re:Video game spam by lowe0 · 2006-10-18 07:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  So, a guy from Capcom makes a comment you don't like, and you hold it against Microsoft?
  
  Explain the logic in that, please.
7. Re:Video game spam by gEvil+(beta) · 2006-10-18 07:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Honestly, I'm not sure. I think your revolution theory is probably closest. Also keep in mind that the name xBox360 kinda-sorta-if-you-squint-real-hard-you-can-almost -see-it puts it on par with the PS3 (both have 3 in their name, geddit?). Combine 'revolution' with a number that has a strong 3 presence in it and you get 360. Seems ridiculously lame to me, but I certainly wouldn't put it past the marketing guys at MS.
  
  --
  This guy's the limit!
8. Re:Video game spam by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-18 07:42 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  What exactly is 360 supposed to convey in the name XBox 360?
  
  It's supposed to convey nothing more than "OMGWTFBBQ 360 is higher then 3 so the XBox 360 must be better than the PS3".
  
  No, seriously. The marketing guys at Microsoft realised that putting out an XBox 2 versus a PlayStation 3 would sound very bad indeed as a large chunk of the public would see 3 > 2 and therefore better. Since they couldn't call it an XBox 3, they had to come up some other wowser name instead.
  
  Enter the 360 - totally meaningless in and of itself, but a suitably "powerful" replacement for the mere number 2.
9. Re:Video game spam by brkello · 2006-10-18 08:20 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  There is a console named the "Wii" running around out there and you stop to consider 360. Crazy!
  
  --
  Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
10. Re:Video game spam by Ucklak · 2006-10-18 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  I get the "Wii" as it conveys the wireless capabilities. I liked Revolution better but I'm just a consumer.
  
  The angle on the 360 > `the number 3` makes the most sense however I still feel that they copied the name from `Revolution`.
  
  Whatever happened to the good ole days when it was Atari vs Intellivision, Genesis vs Turbografx?
  
  I'm rooting for Nintento on this round as history has shown that the console prices drop 50% after a couple of years.
  At that rate, the 360 is still over $200 for a usable unit. Same goes for the PS3.
  
  I realize that hey have titles and a bigger marketing push but damn, the CDi was $400 at launch.
  
  --
  if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
11. Re:Video game spam by sloth+jr · 2006-10-18 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Stupid marketing doesn't need reasons.
  
  When SGI released their O2, they specifically mentioned that it doesn't stand for anything , and even though the 2 was subscripted, had no relationship to any molecule of oxygen. I'm sure you can find many more stupid and senseless marketing redos, in logos, product names, etc. Marketing doesn't need reasons or facts.
  
  In the case of the 360, perhaps you can argue that it's the "complete" gaming solution. yah, whatever. I wonder the same thing about Yahoo's 360. The link between 360 and the Revolution seems possible, too - which might have been why Nintendo changed the name to (the still incredibly weird) Wii.
  
  sloth jr
12. Re:Video game spam by miro+f · 2006-10-18 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  damn why didn't Nintendo think of this? Who'd buy a Playstation 3 when they can get a Nintendo 5?
  
  --
  being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
13. Re:Video game spam by cloricus · 2006-10-18 13:16 · Score: 1
  
  You must admit though that while it is a strange name that put it back in the running this generation. I hate to be a consumer though I'd counted myself out of this generation cause I couldn't afford a ps3, I wasn't interested in the xbox2, and well the revolution seemed bland. Nintendo turned that around with a simple name change and an effective marketing push...They made it stand out enough that every day pc gamers like myself said 'peh okay I'll have a look' and they backed it up with interesting new features like the new controller. So much so that I went from not wanting a console to having the money ready to buy a Wii on release day with a game or two and an extra controller - which I think is a damn good effort on their part.
  
  Just a note on the controller though, that is a make or break deal for me, if I walk into eb on release day and don't like it I'll be walking out with my cash - I dearly hope this wont be the case.
  
  --
  I ate your fish.
14. Re:Video game spam by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-18 15:33 · Score: 0
  
  "Someone told me that it was Microsoft copying Nintendo on the Revolution name - I can get that and it's almost believable. In fact it's more believable over the other ones I mentioned."
  
  Yeah, that's the reason.
  
  Thank goodness they were able to leverage their time travel technology.....
15. Re:Video game spam by regular_gonzalez · 2006-10-18 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  Because if a typical clueless parent is Xmas shopping and has the choice of Playstation 3 or XBox 2 for roughly similar prices ... well, 3 > 2 so the Playstation must be newer and better. In short, typical marketing.
  
  --
  Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
16. Re:Video game spam by birder · 2006-10-19 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  but if it was called the Xbox 3.99 ( 3.99 > 3) the PS 3 would be regarded as the better product because it has the lower number. On a personal rant, why are Sony charging $4.99 for a downloaded game. Christs sake, just make it $5.
17. Re:Video game spam by camperslo · 2006-10-19 02:00 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  What exactly is 360 supposed to convey in the name XBox 360?
  
  The operating temperature??
18. Re:Video game spam by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-19 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  This is also why Sega marketed the Dreamcast as "128-bit" - to sell the image that it was twice as good/powerful as the Nintendo 64.
19. Re:Video game spam by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-19 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  $4.99 < $5, silly. That's been a truism in retail marketing far longer than you've been alive.
20. Re:Video game spam by brkello · 2006-10-19 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, well, the playstation named their console "3". I think you put a little too much thought in this. 360 sounds fine to me compared to Wii...which I really think has nothing to do with it's wireless capabilities.
  
  --
  Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
1 bungle down by also-rr · 2006-10-18 06:38 · Score: 2, Funny

9457637863458736457843 admissions to go!

--
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
Eh? by TFer_Atvar · 2006-10-18 06:43 · Score: 1

99 nights and 210 days? Must be Microsoft math.
1. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-18 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  They were using an intel processor and Windows, what do you expect?
and... by SuperStretch · 2006-10-18 06:43 · Score: 0

How bout a Windows Vista / their new FS / and a billion other things?

--
Help me get a new laptop - http://nocreditcard.yourgiftsfree.com/?id=3012
well... by Manmademan · 2006-10-18 06:43 · Score: 3, Informative

While true in all markets, this has especially been a problem in the U.K., where a delay of 210 days separated Dead Rising and Nintey-Nine Nights...
Neither Dead rising nor Ninety Nine Nights were first party games. Dead Rising was developed by capcom, NNN by the same people who made lumines, IIRC.
1. Re:well... by Osty · 2006-10-18 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Neither Dead rising nor Ninety Nine Nights were first party games. Dead Rising was developed by capcom, NNN by the same people who made lumines, IIRC.
  
  N3 was published by Microsoft, though. But yes, the comparison is silly since the article was talking about Microsoft-published games.
  
  Maybe they'll make up for it by bringing Forza 2 back into the Holiday timeframe ...
2. Re:well... by tc · 2006-10-18 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  And if you RTFA, you'd realize that the Slashdot article has a typo, and the quote should refer to Dead or Alive not Dead Rising.
  
  Also, in the games business, "first-party" refers to games published by the platform holder, not necessarily developed by it.
3. Re:well... by badasscat · 2006-10-18 09:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Also, in the games business, "first-party" refers to games published by the platform holder, not necessarily developed by it.
  
  Well, as someone who worked in the game business (at a third-party publisher) for many years, I can tell you that this is in fact not at all true.
  
  First-party means games developed in-house. Nintendo's EAD being the only "pure" example left, although you could probably rightly argue that any developer purchased and then brought under the fold of one of the console manufacturers also qualifies. But the point is it's the manufacturer that does the hires, that does the approvals, that comes up with the ideas, all with a cohesive strategy in mind for where those games fit in to the library of the console.
  
  Lots of manufacturers have published titles from third parties before. Nobody has ever called those first-party games. Of course, it's in MS's best interests to try to change the definition now because otherwise, they have almost no first-party development to speak of at all. They're basically padding the stats, trying to refer to titles they publish as "first-party".
  
  But the whole point of first-party games is that the design and execution comes completely from within the manufacturer of the console they're on. That's what makes them distinct from third-party games, which are a mish-mash of random ideas and styles that have no real relation to each other. A first-party dev like EAD can say "our console needs a Zelda game" and then they go out and make a Zelda game for it. Third party developers are under no such obligation to the console; they're only under an obligation to make money for themselves. You'd never see the number of cookie-cutter FPS or GTA clones coming out lately from third-party devs as first-party games, for example - that's the difference.
  
  The point being, MS's first-party offerings are much worse than even they say they are, and they have no real vision or means of executing one for the overall direction of the 360's game library. Neither does Sony with the PS3, for that matter (though they're in slightly better first-party shape than MS). They've managed to be successful so far regardless, to whatever extent, but this article is basically tantamount to an admission that without a healthy first-party development unit, they're at the mercy of third party devs to build the system's game library and if they drop the ball, there's not a hell of a lot MS can do.
4. Re:well... by tc · 2006-10-18 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  And as someone who still works in the games publishing business, for a platform holder, I can tell you that the terminology we use is "first party" to refer to all titles published by us, regardless of who developed them. Note that "published by us" is not the same as "released on our platform". If, say, Electronic Arts releases a title for our platform, then that would indeed be called "third party".
  
  Perhaps there are some distinctions from company to company about how exactly the terminology is used, leading to the confusion. In any event, I think it's pretty obvious what the interviewee in the article meant.
  
  Even taking a definition of "first party" to mean "internally developed", Microsoft does have quite a bit of first party software. In particular, note that Bungie, Lionhead, Ensemble, and Rare are all owned by Microsoft, and thus count as "first party" (even by your definition). Forza is also a first party title. I'm sure there are some other pieces I have forgotten.
  
  By your definition, Sony has very little first party strength at all, and relies very heavily on third party publishers. Nintendo obviously has great first party strength. I would argue that Microsoft is somewhere in the middle.
5. Re:well... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-19 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  DOA is not a first party title either, it's by Tecmo.
  
  Also, in the games business, "first-party" refers to games published by the platform holder, not necessarily developed by it.
  
  No, that's a definition made up only to suit your argument. "First party" refers to games developed by the platform holder. I.e. Solitaire and Flight Simulator are first party Microsoft games.
On the right track... by tarun713 · 2006-10-18 06:47 · Score: 1

...now if they'd only stop holding a game's release off until November for Christmas season, the summer months may actually see some real releases! It's a large problem that tons of games that gets completed by April are held off release until November, and any that miss the Christmas deadline are all released in Feb/March. That means 3 months out of the year, we see way too many releases. (Of course, if I had any self control, I'd hold off on purchasing all the games until price drops :))
1. Re:On the right track... by rblum · 2006-10-18 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Uhuh. Could you name *any* game that was actually completed in April and only released in November?
  
  Sorry, but the way this works is that the schedule is actively tailored towards November if you're a heavy hitter, and around it if you want to break into the market. (I.e. September or January)
  
  Blame the market - people buy more games around XMas & Turkey Day.
210 Days? by DubbaJ · 2006-10-18 06:54 · Score: 1

I've got limited access here at work, and can't check this for myself, but was there really about 7 months between the release of Dead Rising and Ninety Nine Nights?!
1. Re:210 Days? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-18 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  "a staggering 210-day void between first-party releases Dead Or Alive 4 on 27th Janaury, and Ninety-Nine Nights on 25th August in the UK."
  
  They wrote the wrong game in the summary - RTFA :)
And in other news... by Channard · 2006-10-18 07:03 · Score: 1

Sony have announced that George and Zippy have been put in charge of the PS3's release schedule.
Mod parent up by Pejorian · 2006-10-18 11:15 · Score: 1

Very insightful comment.

--
- Murphy's Corollary: - It is impossible to make things foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
'Nintey-Nine Nights' by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-18 11:56 · Score: 0

Is Nintey-Nine Nights another Wii60 advertising strategy or something? :P
A whole year by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-18 15:12 · Score: 0

"In a whole year there should be too many good games to count on your fingers and toes."

That would be true if the game developers weren't spending all of their time coding for the PS3 launches.
No Shat! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-19 01:10 · Score: 0

My Xbox 360 has been gathing dust for the past 4 months. I bought it, played Oblivion and GRAW. Then the games ran out. I'm never buying a console from Microsoft again.