Some gamers read quite a bit of gaming news and listen to many gaming podcasts in order to stay informed about the state of games and the industry. This exposes us to ton's of critics. Many of us find ourselves becoming video game critics. We definitely have opinions and some of us find ourselves making counterpoints to journalists views all the time.
Recently, there as been a good deal of criticism about Microsoft and their 360 console. The criticism is based on Microsoft only having two first-party game titles arriving this holiday season. Who cares?!
Alright, it's not a very verbose counterpoint but it's blunt and direct. However, lets take a few minutes to explain the emotional opinion on this topic a bit more and see how we all feel about this.
The only first-party titles being released this holiday for the 360 are Gears of War and Viva Pinata but why is this seen as an inherent flaw? People seem to think this is a flaw in the companies view of the market because first-party titles are "exclusives" and people continue to think that "exclusives" sell console systems.
Do exclusives sell systems like they did when we were kids? The landsape of exclusives is in an industry wide transition now. Things are changing and we're not kids anymore; consoles are heading into the seventh generation and times are changing.
A gamer can play Rainbow Six: Vegas and Call of Duty 3 on PS3 this fall, but that doesn't take away from the 360 lineup! It still puts solid titles on the shelf and enhances a growing library of good games. How can that be a bad thing? Would Call of Duty 3 as an exclusive on 360 be much better? More than likely the game would be a bit better as an exclusive title (since developers can work to optimize for a specific platform) but that doesn't truly help the consumer. Non-exclusive titles allows the consumer to choose their gaming platform and console of choice without having to tie themselves to a specific console to play their favorite games.
A title released on the 360 and the PS3, non-exclusive, still offer unique gaming experiences given the unique controller layouts for each system, console services/features and the different graphic technologies. Therefore, these games can be considered as "different titles" in each respective library even if the uniqueness is less than that of a truly first-party platformer.
Case in point, Sony hasn't publicly outlined it's online strategy while Microsoft thrives in the world of Xbox Live. There is little doubt that online games are the way of the future and all the game studios know this. Fortunately for Microsoft, they are the king of online gaming and they are leading the charge. Until Sony can prove that it can deliver an "Xbox Live" type of service for its online enabled games, the games that are released for both systems will be different experiences.
A glaring example is Tony Hawk 8. Neversoft designed the core gameplay around an online experience, yet the PS3 version will not have an online component (at release anyway). That is HUGE! Sure, you can buy Tony Hawk 8 for the 360 or the PS3 but you aren't getting the same game. The PS3 version seems as if it will be a neutered version and inferior, in many ways, to the 360 version. Will Tony Hawk 8 be the only one like this? Probably not. Online support for PS3 hasn't been officially announced for Rainbow Six: Vegas or Call of Duty 3 so we'll have to wait to see what multi-player functionality these games provide.
Maybe Microsoft realizes it doesn't have to build a massive library of first-party games to have a successful system. Nintendo's dominance, in the 1980's, was based on first-party titles and it has since become the traditional way of thinking about market dominance and console sales. This was a time when Mario and Zelda ruled the console landscape with a fist full of mushrooms and a boomerang.
But times are changing and the industry needs to find ways to change with it. Microsoft made some good moves by purchasing Bungie and Rare but they don't need to own all the great development studios to have a huge library of awesome games.
Microsoft works with third-party developers as if they where first-party developers. They do this by giving developers a console that is easy to develop for and support the teams as needed. They have shown they can partner with a company without owning the company.
Epic, a third party developer, is seen as a first-party developer for Gears of War, their upcoming title, because Microsoft publishing the game. Epic is not a Bungie Studios - they are not Microsoft. Microsoft is publishing the game just as Electronic Arts publishes games from development studios all around the globe. Microsoft does not have to buy up the industry, they simply choose talented development studios and support them through the development cycle.
Maybe in the future they can find lesser known studios and partner with them to get a great game and raise the that studios stock in the industry. It would be win/win for Microsoft and the unknown studio (if the games are solid).
Microsoft is smart enough to know when they can't compete directly. Remember when the Xbox originally launched and had their own line of sport titles being made by their first-pary sport team? Eventually, they learned they just couldn't compete in the market from a first-party standpoint and pulled the plug on the projects. Many sports gamers were unimpressed by the showings of NFL Fever. Although wasn't "bad," it certainly wasn't a 2K football titles or even EA's Madden franchise.
The choice to support third-party sports titles over their own sports titles was a good one. Microsoft quickly realized they didn't necessarily have to make these games in-house in order to get them on their console. Why play catch up when you can support development companies that have been building sports games for many years? An intelligent decision which proves Microsoft is in this industry to compete - not to publish mediocre titles with their name on it just because they have the money.
In the end, Microsoft is a good, solid, smart company that has every intension of clawing their way to number one in the console market. Perhaps they will never make it to number one but their drive and perseverance give gamers confidence in their product and the future for the system.
Just because Microsoft doesn't provide large quantities of in-house first-party titles doesn't mean anything in this new gaming landscape which we are entering. All that matters to consumers is the
great quality games which supply creativity and fun to their gaming library on a continuous basis. We don't need them to give us first-party titles if the third-party titles are handled with first-party care.
Until Sony can prove it's online strategy is able to compete with Live, Microsoft is going to have an advantage in every muti-platform title released - first or third party. Take that Kaz!
