Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GameCube (Games) XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Xbox - Borrowing Nintendo's First-Party Model? 45

Posted by simoniker from the best-software-comes-from-redmond? dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Xbox - Borrowing Nintendo's First-Party Model? More

Xbox - Borrowing Nintendo's First-Party Model?

Comments Filter:
  • Similar to the story about XSN- their gaming network, I welcome this.

    With EA keeping their paws off of Live, it IS up to Microsoft to create their own games. And as long as they utilize what makes the Xbox unique (Live for one thing) Xbox owners will benefit far more than just getting another version of Grand Theft Auto.

  • Okay, let's count the number of successful Microsoft-developed games versus the number of successful Nintendo-developed games. While I don't doubt that Microsoft could eventually do it, Nintendo's been not only making first party games for 20 years now, they've gotten really good with it. Plus, it takes time for game franchises to become beloved - Mario, Zelda, Sonic, Metroid, Final Fantasy - those franchises really only cemented their place in history by having consistently good sequels. Face it, if the on
    • 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 :)

      • Maybe it doesn't attract the same people as Mario- but they've also got Flight Simulator. Personally I have never gotten into it- but an amazing number of people have.

        Flight Simulator History [simflight.com]
      • Buying a game developer doesn't instantly make it first party... Halo was mostly done before Microsoft got control of Bungie, a better game to judge will be Halo 2 which will presumable be shaped more by whatever management Microsoft decide to assert (though I think they will be sensible to leave well enough alone).
    • Plus, it takes time for game franchises to become beloved - Mario, Zelda, Sonic, Metroid, Final Fantasy - those franchises really only cemented their place in history by having consistently good sequels.

      But *all of the games mentioned were very popular in their first incarnation. And hence, all of their sequels also did very good business. Starting a popular new franchise is as 'easy' as just making an excellent game. Look at games like Devil May Cry or Super Smash Brothers - one game was enough to start

  • Proof is in the Pudding (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Hmmm.. Let's take a look at their Microsoft games website and see how original they are with PC games.... Flight Simulator 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc., Mechwarrior 1,2,3 (sarcasm intended).... Zoo Tycoon.... Links Golf, Halo.... Oh, they didn't make Halo... they bought out Bungie... Oh look, Bungie, I mean Microsoft's Inhouse development team is making Halo 2....

    During an interview, it's not uncommon for VPs to gloss over and hype their upcoming products. The proof will be in the pudding with what they come ou

    • They're certainly trying. Two upcoming games from Microsoft Game Studios Japan:

      Phantom Dust [gamespot.com] - 3rd person action shooting game with Live multiplayer and customizable characters with a choice of 300 abilities.
      Magatama [xbox.com] (Demon Fang Spirit) - 3rd person slash 'em up being worked on by the lead programmer of Final Fantasy VII.

      I regard Amped as one of Microsoft's inhouse successes too. Even if you prefer 1080, you have to accept that Amped is a serious contender for the title of best snowboarding game of

    • "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?

  • Microsoft is like Nintendo with a brain (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 19, 2003 @12:07PM (#7005460)
    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.
    • Alot of Nintendo games are like niche movies (great, if you are into it, but most ain't).

      Every video game sales chart ever made disagrees with you on that "most ain't" comment.

      Personally, I don't see a way Microsoft could lose with their gaming strategy in the long run.

      I do. Suppose they continue to make lousy games.

    • Re:Microsoft is like Nintendo with a brain (Score:5, Insightful)

      by edwdig ( 47888 ) on Friday September 19, 2003 @02:11PM (#7006793)
      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.
    • 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.

      You mean mainstream hits like Kakuto Chojin (fighting, flopped, got recalled), Fusion Frenzy (party, flopped), Blinx the Time Sweeper (platformer, flopped), and Sneakers (action platformer, flopped), or Micros

  • the right idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by August_zero ( 654282 ) on Friday September 19, 2003 @12:29PM (#7005702)
    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.

    • Re:the right idea (Score:2, Informative)

      by the_riaa ( 669835 )
      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.

      And after playing both of those games, Tube Slider and F-Zero GX, you have to applaud Nintendo for making the right move. Tube Slider is horrible compared to the Sega output, and I for one applaud Nintendo's choice for quality over the quick money - if Tube Slide

    • 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:
      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 ... and, there are the risky ones like Getaway, My Street, and Okage - but largely the first party line
  • 1. I hope these games live up to the strict quality control standards of Microsoft.

    2. 40 versions of Halo? Sweet!

    3. Microsoft? Artistic? *chuckle*

    4. By internally developed software, you mean, buying a good software company, right?

    5. And we know nobody reads the articles, but if they did I'm sure we'd hear something about this quote: "We're actually in the process of trying to do less things," Fries comments. "Less things, and even higher quality."

    6. Or this one: That's no bad thing. Mic


  • Isn't that why they bought Bungie and other game developers in the first place? Why does it seem like this announcement is too obvious and too late? Am I a dork for not seeing why this is news?

  • they're across the street from each other. what do you expect?
  • "parallels with Nintendo's model are startling."

    Except Nintendo is making big money at it and Microsoft's X-Box unit is hemorraging money.

  • Microsoft is internally... developing between 35 and 40 Xbox titles

    How can they be developing between 35 and 40 titles? Doesn't it have to be 35, 40, or a number in between? How does Microsoft not know exactly how many games they are developing?

    I'm confused...
    • "How does Microsoft not know exactly how many games they are developing? "

      Because he's just some PR guy so he doesnt know for sure?

      Besides PRs have to be careful on this things, games ussually get cancelled or postponed, new games might be made or bought, new teams with new games can be hired
      The point is any number he claims will more likely end up being wrong.

      Anyway 35-40 is not exactly a very open number, if thats at least a close aproximate, it is in fact impressive.
    • How can they be developing between 35 and 40 titles? Doesn't it have to be 35, 40, or a number in between? How does Microsoft not know exactly how many games they are developing?

      There are two explanations:

      1: The PR guy didn't know the exact number, but that it was somewhere in that ballpark.

      2: Many games that count as "in development" are actually just in the idea stage and may, like many games in development at every major game company, get cancelled. Capcom recently made the mistake of announcing a l
  • The number one complaint about the xbox is that every game it comes for it eventually comes out for the PC or is already available in other system. Even games that are "landmarks" for the system like "Halo" are now available for PC .

    When they say the "Nintendo strategy" they mean they are going to invest more money on products of their own so they can be xbox exclusive and not "portable" however this doesnt (theorically at least) mean they are going to do it themselves, more likely they are going to hunt
  • If you examine the first xbox games, you will notice most of them tried to be new franchises (blinx, malice , azurik, halo) but only one of them hit (one that wasnt so original btw) so they are changing that strategy.
    If you examine the new xbox games you will notice they are using old (and not so old) succesful franchises for new games of their own (starcraft,ninja gaiden, conker,mortal kombat) thats the "nintendo strategy" in case you havent noticed it ;-)


    Hey, this guys learn fast!
  • "Embrace and Extend" becomes "Embrace and hey, wait, this seems to work ok"?
  • The major appeal of the XBox is the power.
    The whole philosophy is that it does games better.
    But the change is so marginal that people don't want to change what they have. The real strategy for success is to focus on the fun you can have with an XBox. The power-edge has proven itself successful only in the USA by a scant margin. Elsehwhere it's glossed over. If MS would concentrate on what a majority of the consumers do, then they could hit it off.

    Until then, I'm keeping my Cube and GBA. It serves me well.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you aren't rich you should always look useful. -- Louis-Ferdinand Celine

Close