Microsoft Admits to Release Schedule Bungle

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."

Comments

well...

[Manmademan]

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.

Re:well...

[badasscat]

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.