Microsoft to spend $1 billion on exclusive Xbox One games

It has been revealed that Microsoft will be investing around $1 billion into developing exclusive games for the Xbox One, responding to complaints that the Xbox One is not focused enough on the gaming experience. In an interview with The Official Xbox Magazine, Microsoft's Don Mattrick and Phil Spencer have provided some insight into what we can expect game-wise on the Xbox One.

Mattrick believes that "people are way, way under-indexing how hard we're punching" when it comes to games and the Xbox One, saying "there are great hits, there's innovation, and there are world class creators plugged in" to develop hits for the console. He hints that people will be wowed by their June 10 Xbox One E3 reveal, as a range of developers are creating interesting first-party titles for the console.

Microsoft has previously stated that the Xbox One will see a full 15 exclusive titles in the first year of the console's availability, including eight that are new IP. So far we're only aware of a few games for the console, including Forza Motorsport 5, Quantum Break and Ryse, but more will be revealed in just a few weeks' time.

Source: OXM

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

New Pokki Start menu for Windows 8 adds touch support and more

Next Story

Want a Surface for 60-80% off? Attend TechEd!

50 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Nothing new, Microsoft bought Rockstar to get GTA to the Xbox. Microsoft bought Konami to get Tekken. Microsoft bought over Koei to get exclusive rights to Dead or Alive.
These where all PlayStation exclusives.
Microsoft completely bought over Halo.....


They have done this both generations before, why is this news?
Sony also buys for exclusives. So does Nintendo, Sega did before too.

Brony said,
I hope that MS will not spend those $1billion in blocking games for ps3.

what do you mean?
why block the competition when you can bolster your stance. there's money to be made by both parties and it helps everyone because it will move gaming forward.

ctrl_alt_delete said,

what do you mean?
why block the competition when you can bolster your stance. there's money to be made by both parties and it helps everyone because it will move gaming forward.


Because Microsoft can buy Xbox exclusive rights like they have before.
Dead or Alive is a nice example, a game that became big and well known on the Playstation platform, then Microsoft buys the exclusive rights to the newest release. Was DoA5 at the time I think. or 4. Been years... The latest release is DoA is both platforms though, as I have it for the PS3.
This kinda of exclusiveness sucks. But then again, I cant go and play Gran Turismo on a 360 or Wii.

Honestly, really interested to see what RARE brings to the table. Some of my favorite games are from them, including banjo, jet force gemeni and some others that were just very unique to say the least.
Hopefully what they did back then carries over to the new exclusive they will be showing off....

(I did not like nuts and bolts, too de-railed from the originals)

Spicoli said,
Remember when a billion was a lot of games? Now it's like 10 big ones.

Yeah but they're only subsidizing the game for exclusivity, the publisher still pays most of it. So it's a lot of games.

Yeah because screw the PC. Oh, wait, shouldn't Microsoft be promoting the PC? That's what's bothered me with their gaming division ever since they entered the console arena.

Chugworth said,
Yeah because screw the PC. Oh, wait, shouldn't Microsoft be promoting the PC? That's what's bothered me with their gaming division ever since they entered the console arena.

Consoles are remaining popular because people aren't intimidated by thoughts like, "Can my PC run this game? If it does run, will it look like garbage until I drop another $50 or $100 on an upgraded video card? Will changing out the video card cause my copy of Windows to say it's no longer valid?" I'm not necessarily against PC gaming, but console gaming is much easier for a lot of people, because you know you can go buy a game, take it home, and it will work, and you'll have the same experience as everybody else. You aren't going to get owned in CoD because the guy on the other end is playing at 100 fps and you're stuck at 30. I think people like Microsoft and Sony recognize that, which is why both of them have invested heavily in their gaming consoles.

Forgot the techie intimidation for PC gaming, console gaming is just a whole lot more affordable to a larger audience. The Alienware m17x I'm typing on now was over $2500. Desktops are much cheaper but we're still talking $1000+ for a lower level box.

Spicoli said,
Forgot the techie intimidation for PC gaming, console gaming is just a whole lot more affordable to a larger audience. The Alienware m17x I'm typing on now was over $2500. Desktops are much cheaper but we're still talking $1000+ for a lower level box.

I build my rigs around $500ish...

Not sure why you'd quote desktops at that price at all, when there are easily laptop options around that price...

Asus i5, 8GB RAM, 660M 2GB for $799 - http://goo.gl/nHVQp

dead.cell said,

I build my rigs around $500ish...

Not sure why you'd quote desktops at that price at all, when there are easily laptop options around that price...

Asus i5, 8GB RAM, 660M 2GB for $799 - http://goo.gl/nHVQp

I agree, you can build a really good setup now a days for a real good price. Back, 4 or more years, it was difficult to build something nice for a 'good' price (yeah, probably closer to 1k). Now a days, yeah, 5-600. I have a Asus g60vx laptop, with a nvidia gtx 260m, it has 1gb ram for the video, 4gb for the system. I just want to say, I can play any game at full everything. Grid 2 just came out, needs pretty good specs to play, I can play it full everything (all video settings on high), at about 50fps. Bought this for $900 back in 2010. Still running awesome, and plays every game (just not crysis 3 as that is strictly dx11 and this is dx10 card).

Just saying, the price in hardware for PC gaming has gone down DRAMATICALLY in the past few years. But I still agree whole heartedly with the intimidation comment, the average joe doesnt know about computer gaming enough to say, can I play this game? Worse feeling ever is buying a game at $50-60, bring it home, find out it looks like crap or wont play, then to bring it back and they wont take it back...waste of $60. When on console, its 99% guaranteed to work.

I dont think PC gaming will go anywhere though. Either no more advanced or less designed for, I think it will stay where it is. They make their ports, get in some extra money from the few that buy the game for PC, and the devs move on.

PC gaming is hard, probably would have to have courses on what specs are for [general] people to understand them better, then maybe they would know what it means when they read any of the following: Intel CPU Type, AMD CPU Type, RAM, VRAM, HDD Space. Probably 60% of people dont know what all those mean. And they all mean something in games, usually (unless you just get a crazy rig and spend a good amount of money [nowadays $1k+ is 3+yr futureproof] then you can be an average joe and just not worry).

dead.cell said,
So play on a console where everyone has 30 fps!

Yeah, okay.

Games that need it in at 60, like Forza4 and next gen ill have 60 as baseline.

HawkMan said,
Games that need it in at 60, like Forza4 and next gen ill have 60 as baseline.

That's tomorrow though, I'm talking about the experience over the past several years.

Either way, I'm not complaining about consoles, and yes, I realize PCs can be a bit intimidating when playing games. I won't argue that, and usually suggest people not to buy on release date simply for the fact that there are too many developers that are either sloppy or simply don't have the budget to be able to check every last detail.

As for Microsoft, I've always wondered why their involvement with PC gaming was lacking when it's truly one of their strong points, as literally no other operating system is capable of running the games Windows is. Still though, Microsoft I don't see as being any better than EA to be honest, and would much rather them stay completely out of it. Valve has done a great job in creating a one-stop shop where, even if they aren't the lowest in price, people will buy the keys off Amazon if they know it will work with Steam. ($12 for Dark Souls? $6 for Chivalry? Yes please!) I've purchased way too many games because of their existence (215 to be exact).

$500-ish isn't going to get you much of a graphics card or an SSD to speed up the I/O. I built my last development box for around $600 but it only has mid range graphics and that doesn't include the monitors.

I spend around $130ish each time I do for a graphics card, and Battlefield 3 still looks way better than the console equivalent so...

Furthermore, shouldn't have to include the cost of monitors. That would be like including the price of your television with a console.

Spending a billion dollars on brand new games is innovation you crazy nutter.

Also the new Kinect is easily the most innovative tech I've seen this year. Come back to earth please.

Sonne said,
Seems to be Microsofts' mantra, "We can't innovate but we do have deep pockets!"

What are you on about. They're investing in games for YOU to play on their system, jeez. Can't please some people.

Sonne said,
Seems to be Microsofts' mantra, "We can't innovate but we do have deep pockets!"

Some people are just blinded hate I guess.

What's innovating in the next gen consoles:
Microsoft Xbox One:
Using the cloud to augment processing -innovation
Introduction of fast switching between games and apps - innovation
Multi-tasking on a console - innovation
Better motion tracking and voice even in total darkness - innovation

Sony playstation 4:
Game streaming to playstation vita - innovation
(Can someone help me fill this in because I'm stuck)

So far I think Microsoft is the one bringing way more innovation to the table. Therefore you statement above is nothing more than spineless FUD
And in case you didn't know exclusives costs a lot of money and this news shows that Microsoft is willing to go the extra mile to bring greate content to their users/customers.
So maybe you can help me fill out the innovations that Sony is bring to the table in the upcoming console generation

Let me help you fill that: Xbox Will allow you to switch between the games and live tv which means what people are critizing microsofts xbox for doing something that a tv already does is just a feature that enable you to watch whats on the tv without having to move ur ass to pick the tv remote to go thru the inputs till you find tv losing time which sometimes results in games not being paused too.

As for ps4 well thru its ps4 game streaming its games will be playable by ps vita and possibly new plataforms, but that will also happen to xbox and its games will be avaible to windows.

ctrl_alt_delete said,

Microsoft Xbox One:
Using the cloud to augment processing -innovation
Introduction of fast switching between games and apps - innovation
Multi-tasking on a console - innovation
Better motion tracking and voice even in total darkness - innovation

Using the cloud to augment processing - any online multiplayer game does use "the cloud" to augment processing, specifically calculating collisions and loot so that all connected clients get the same result.

Introduction of fast switching between games and apps - my PC did this since Windows 95

Multi-tasking on a console - not innovation, simply natural evolution. As you get more cores and a PC-based kermel, it's only natural that you will also inherit its multitasking capabilities.

Better motion tracking and voice even in total darkness - again not innovation, just improving on existing technology. The first Kinect was innovation, this is just using higher quality components and some improved algorithms.

What's next? will you also try to convince us that the new d-pad is innovation???

Jesus christ.

The 3 OS architecture with HyperVM is the most advanced consumer system architecture ever released. It was built by the guy who invented the NT kernal. The founder of the PC as we know it today created the architecture behind the new Xbox by himself. Imagine triple booting your machine and all those operating systems switching instantly. Like Alt+Tab from Linux to Windows to Mac OSX. Thats innovation.

That's so ignorant with Kinect. Its not better algorithms and components. Rather than using a infrared data grid it now lightmaps the room in total IR which allows it to see in the dark. That in itself needs the software to have a total revamp of how it understands and processes depth.

gonchuki said,

Using the cloud to augment processing - any online multiplayer game does use "the cloud" to augment processing, specifically calculating collisions and loot so that all connected clients get the same result.

Introduction of fast switching between games and apps - my PC did this since Windows 95

Multi-tasking on a console - not innovation, simply natural evolution. As you get more cores and a PC-based kermel, it's only natural that you will also inherit its multitasking capabilities.

Better motion tracking and voice even in total darkness - again not innovation, just improving on existing technology. The first Kinect was innovation, this is just using higher quality components and some improved algorithms.

What's next? will you also try to convince us that the new d-pad is innovation???

Innovation doesn't always mean introducing something new, it also means improving on existing ideas. The keyword there is "improving".
Microsoft using the cloud to help with processing IS innovative, and no existing multi player games doesn't have this
With the multi tasking, yes it's been on PC for years however traditionally it has never been on a gaming console and now it has.
With the motion tracking, it's pretty damn innovative. I've never seen anything tht can track a person or object (not only in 2D) but in 3D space.
There's so much innovation going in that One box it's mind blowing.

ctrl_alt_delete said,

Innovation doesn't always mean introducing something new, it also means improving on existing ideas. The keyword there is "improving".


Then you admit you are wrong, right? Improvement doesn't equal innovation. Innovating is doing something nobody else expected you to do, it's bringing new ideas to the table.

Now as for cloud computing, stop globbing all that marketing bullsh*t. Any interaction where the client offloads any calculation to the server is "cloud computing", and be it for improved performance, avoiding cheats or simply synchronize every client and avoid doing the same calculation on each one of them, games have used "cloud computing" for over a decade.

Not even running each OS in a hypervisor is an innovation, this has been done for years on servers (for example with VMware ESX, MS's own Hyper V not so much) so bringing it on for consoles is simply using existing tech, or actually improving on what they had for Hyper V.

Now, you could call innovation the conglomerate of all those features in a single device, and that's the real innovation: the sum of all pieces, not each feature singled out.


I'm personally very interested in the architecture/OS behind the XboxOne, where as I've not been interested in the Xbox and 360's architecture/OS.
It shows the power of NT.
And its not exactly implemented as VMware, ESX etc. And virtual machines are also not new on a Console, on the PS3, otherOS ran in a 'virtual environment' Where the OS had no direct access to the hardware, and couldn't even use the full power of the CPU.
Its all not new technologies, but they are innovating. Or have you seen what the Xbox One offers before on a console?

And afaik the current Kinect is similar to the Kinect while they where researching it, and nerfed it down tremendously because lack of bandwidth.

Apple innovated by implemented finger touch on mobile phones < existing tech in new form.
Google innovates by making fancy glasses < existing tech in similar form.
Microsoft innovates by Xbox One < Existing tech, improved and in a new form.

I think "Innovation" is not the proper word to use in this argument. However, I believe what CRTLALTDELETE is comparing both consoles - what XONE and PS4 has to offer?

Granted, as both of you have mentioned, all of these technologies already exist, but XONE is the first one to impliment it in on a gaming console. MS is just utilazing existing technologies to improve the Xbox against the competition.

"Mattrick believes that "people are way, way under-indexing how hard we're punching" when it comes to games and the Xbox One"

If that is so, it is only due to how horribly MS has been handling everything. Can't blame the people when MS keeps flip flopping on what their people are saying.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft was very clear when they stated "before" the Xbox One reveal that they were saving the games for E3, and the reveal would be specifically about the console itself and some of the new features it would have. After all, it "is" a game console, so it's only obvious that it plays games. What Microsoft needed to do (which I feel they did) was show what it does that the PS4 doesn't do. I'm hoping the E3 presentation will finally shut everyone up about how it's just a "tv box".

What have they flip flopped on?

The Xbox One EULA for game installs (disc or download) is identical to game downloads on Xbox 360 today. The only difference is that you can now uninstall and deactivate your rights for the game so that you can resell it.

Because they let you deactivate and sell the game to someone else the games installed have to verify your ownership once a day like a Tivo box downloading an updated program guide.

IceBreakerG said,
I'm pretty sure Microsoft was very clear when they stated "before" the Xbox One reveal that they were saving the games for E3, and the reveal would be specifically about the console itself and some of the new features it would have.

Doesn't mean it was a good idea, let alone what people wanted to see. Sony's conference wasn't amazing, and the only thing Microsoft seemed to take away from it was "show the console", which didn't do much since they obviously missed the point of what gamers wanted to see...

dead.cell said,

Doesn't mean it was a good idea, let alone what people wanted to see. Sony's conference wasn't amazing, and the only thing Microsoft seemed to take away from it was "show the console", which didn't do much since they obviously missed the point of what gamers wanted to see...

So because they didn't see what they wanted to see at the time they wanted to see it then that gives them the right to spread FUD?

Sony and Microsoft chose two different strategies:
So on one hand chose to talk about games and their controller that includes a share button without showing the console

Microsoft on the other hand chose to show their console and their controller new controller with a miltitasking button and about other things like tv integration and multitasking.

dead.cell said,

Doesn't mean it was a good idea, let alone what people wanted to see. Sony's conference wasn't amazing, and the only thing Microsoft seemed to take away from it was "show the console", which didn't do much since they obviously missed the point of what gamers wanted to see...

DeadCell, the problem during MS presentation was comprehension by the viewers. The guys that went on stage specifically mentioned a few times even before the console was reveal that the presentation was about the new console and its new features. At the same time, it was stated along the line that the gaming aspect of the console will be featured more on E3.

MS decided to get some of the specifics that wouldn't fit on E3 out of the way, like the new TV feature, Halo series, ESPN FF, and such. By the time E3 rolls in, MS can focus more on gaming.

Microsoft just didn't want to throw technical stuff at e3, and decided to do two reveals one for games another for hardware. this just means they have way too much to show at e3 so i'd rather wait and see some great games then not wait and only see something like what was show at ps4 reveal which is game trailers and a interface.

Hey, you don't have to tell me. It's the Xbox fans that are annoyed. I'm a PC gamer so I'm already used to Microsoft ignoring us.

I as a Xbox fan im annoyed at rumours by brainless people, example:

"They would then have to purchase the right to play that game through Xbox Live."
"They would be paying the same price we paid, or less?" kotaku asked Harrison.

"Let's assume it's a new game, so the answer is yes, it will be the same price," Harrison said.

This just means people will pay current price (like the current game price at xbl) and not we will pay full launch game price, still some brainless think that and panic.

It's good idea to separate the console from the games upon revealing the console. It's called smart marketing. You give people enough to be curious about and then reveal the last part to hype it up even more. Everyone is talking about Xbox one lately, yet there's rarely anything being said about PS4. In that aspect, Microsoft already beat Sony.

shakey said,
"Mattrick believes that "people are way, way under-indexing how hard we're punching" when it comes to games and the Xbox One"

If that is so, it is only due to how horribly MS has been handling everything. Can't blame the people when MS keeps flip flopping on what their people are saying.

Funny argument since even less is known about the PS4 and it's systems.

Uhm only on news sites and imgur/reddit/9gag/4chan people seem to care about the Xbox One so far, people around me are far more interested in PS4. But I'm from Europe, the market that doesn't seem to matter to Microsoft.
Then again, most people around me have a PS3, or both and a 360 collecting dust.

If Microsoft is not going to counter PSN+, they are not going to win the next generation outside the US.

I think what people are missing is that this generation, people were pretty 50/50 regarding the gaming consoles between PS3 and 360. However, you take Sony fans coupled with Xbox fans who are annoyed with Microsoft or just plain confused and stir the pot, of course you're going to have people leaning towards Sony.

This makes a lot of sense as to how or why the polls are showing the Sony bias. Maybe Microsoft will be able to rectify this, but until then, they won't exactly win anyone over until they clarify what all these stats and systems they've thrown at us actually means.