Xbox One vs. PS4 vs. Wii U: Microsoft Still Trailing Behind

[123456789A]

Yeah the the lack of single player campaign was poor but also it just isn't all that much better on the X1 over the 360. Even if you play the two side by side the 360 version still plays really well. Kind of made the X1 look not that much better than the 360 IMHO.

 

I know what you mean. I think consoles should go back to doubling the bits. When you put the 8 bit Nintendo next to the 16 bit Super Nintendo, you really could see a difference in the graphics. Xbox One and PS4 probably have just around the same amount of bits as the 360 and PS3, which is why the tapes don't look that much more impressive.

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

Wii U is about to get more wind under it sails, with actually new, great looking games coming out.

The issues / complaints I had about the slow / laggy OS have pretty much been dealt with as well. 

 

Will have to see how this plays out in the long run before coming to any final conclusions however. 

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Topic cleaned

 

Keep it civil & drop the passive aggressive attitudes. If you guys can't agree on something then move on.

[Guest]

Yep. People attack Vgchartz because they don't like what's being reported, period. All the MS crowd on this site is attack the source whenever the news is negative.

 

It is so reliable that we all know that Diablo + 2 + 3 has so far sold 15 million copies, even though Blizzard just announced that Diablo 3 alone has sold 20+ million copies. Also the numbers of WoW and StarCraft are a joke, still showing less than 5 million for SC2, even though the game passed that number in late 2010.

 

Pathetic is what I can call that website. It is like relying on random Twitter accounts for updates relating to cure for cancer.

[Lord Method Man]

It is so reliable that we all know that Diablo + 2 + 3 has so far sold 15 million copies, even though Blizzard just announced that Diablo 3 alone has sold 20+ million copies. Also the numbers of WoW and StarCraft are a joke, still showing less than 5 million for SC2, even though the game passed that number in late 2010.

 

Pathetic is what I can call that website. It is like relying on random Twitter accounts for updates relating to cure for cancer.

 

Show me the real numbers then. Show me where they are wrong about Xbox One being outsold by Wii U.

 

Show us.

 

Remember this thread is actually about that, not about "ha ha its from vgchartz so I can automatically say its wrong to avoid having to deal with the issue."

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

What did I just say?

 

Just because the swear filter catches your words doesn't mean your tones and attitudes are acceptable.

 

Stop treating each other like trash and try to have a reasonable discussion about sales for once. If you don't like the source then don't comment on it either. There's no need to trash topics.

 

Last chance.

[Emn1ty]

Show me the real numbers then. Show me where they are wrong about Xbox One being outsold by Wii U.

 

Show us.

 

Remember this thread is actually about that, not about "ha ha its from vgchartz so I can automatically say its wrong to avoid having to deal with the issue."

 

We aren't saying it's wrong, we're saying the source could be wrong. I think you're failing to understand that we're saying is that this isn't news and it's not even from a reliable source... so why is it here?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Better topics to discuss in - https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1226425-xbox-one-sold-at-least-5-million-units-hints-microsoft/ & https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1225551-sony-gamescom-ps4-install-base-exceeded-10-million-units-sold-through-globally/

[LaP]

Yep. People attack Vgchartz because they don't like what's being reported, period. All the MS crowd on this site is attack the source whenever the news is negative.

 

And they do the opposite when it's the other way around like for NetApplications.

[LaP]

Titanfall would have been so much better if it had a single player campaign and a story that people actually cared about. The multiplayer is great, but I just didn't get "into" the game.

I don't think the game needed single player at all.

 

I played the PC version on a friend pc but i think both the xbox one and pc version are pretty much the same. The game simply did not have enough content and features for an online only game. It was nice while it lasted but i personally don't know anyone who still play Titanfall and the game was not good enough for me to consider buying it.

 

The game was fun though and if they can add more meat to the bones whith Titanfall 2 i'll surely buy it.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Show me the real numbers then. Show me where they are wrong about Xbox One being outsold by Wii U.

It doesn't work like that. VGChartz has been demonstrated to be utterly unreliable - it doesn't become reliable simply because there are no other numbers. If I was to estimate that there are 130 million pairs of left-handed scissors on the planet and nobody else could produce a figure to prove otherwise that doesn't make my estimate in any way credible.

[GotBored]

What did I just say?

 

Just because the swear filter catches your words doesn't mean your tones and attitudes are acceptable.

 

Stop treating each other like trash and try to have a reasonable discussion about sales for once. If you don't like the source then don't comment on it either. There's no need to trash topics.

 

Last chance.

 

Thanks Andrew,

 

Just a side note, its seems any news which certain people don't agree with they come to the thread and spam it with junk which always leads to it being locked.

 

I personally think posters should be able to discuss sales data logically and if they don't like the data I don't think its fair that they can force a thread to be locked because of lack of self control.

[trooper11]

Guys, just let it go, MS is in dead last and will remain there. Their gambit failed and they lack the support externally to turn it around. Their changes have all been good, but resulted in zero bump sales wise. Even as people demanded MS make the changes they have, those people greatly underestimated the value of those changes. So now MS has less to lean on as differentiators and no sales/popularity bumps to show for it. Just another loss in a string of losses.

Only good game content will change the trend now. It will be a slow process and may result in the failure of the platform, but one thing is clear, there is no quick turn around on the horizon.

Heck, even within online communities where some will swear its a bastion for fanboys, the clear preference is for Sony. All you have to do is compare the type and volume of new topics created in sections dedicated to one platform or the other. The trend is clear and has been that way for a while.

As for this topic itself, I think its completely fair to question the source of sales data. To deny that would make it seem like your not willing to question the data since it fits in with some agenda you have. We are not talking about cold hard facts. VGCharts or any other online service like that can and should be question for authenticity.

So I really hope that does not get banned from such topics. Sure, stop being jerks about it, but if you have a fair reason to question a source, share that reason, hopefully backed up with some evidence, and let it go.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Despite VGAChartz begin unreliable I think it's safe to say MS is coming in last right now.  To be fair a big part of why they are behind the Wii U is because Wii U got a huge head start.  Of late the Wii U sales have picked up significantly however so it's not so clear that MS will be able to catch them now.

 

The problem MS has is they have no "must-have" 1st party games.  Maybe people would have been happy to pay the $100 premium for the Kinect if there was some amazing Kinect first party launch title.  Who knows because there STILL isn't any amazing first party Kinect titles and now with it becoming optional and devs clamoring to disable it to get that 10% performance back it's unlikely there ever will be.  Matching the PS4 on price isn't going to help them beat the PS4 though when they have weaker hardware if they rely on 3rd party games.  A killer first party title can help with even significantly inferior hardware, just look as what Mario Kart 8 has done for the Wii U.  If Nintendo can do that for the vastly weaker Wii U then MS should be able to drive up sales with a strong 1st party title since their performance gap isn't even that big.  MS doesn't have such a title though.

 

At launch there most highly hyped exclusive was Ryse but it didn't turn out to be as good as hyped and even it if did it's not a first party title.  Crytek has made clear they own it and they reserve the right to release sequels on other platforms.  They likely signed the exclusive deal for the first one thinking sales this generation would break down at least similarly to last and so it seemed like a good idea. Not even Sony saw this sales gap coming.  Titanfall is a similar case, it's made by Respawn and published by EA so nothing there ties a sequel to MS.  Titanfall 2 will almost certainly come to PS4.  So what does MS have?  Halo was the must have of the last few gens but Bungie is Halo so for all intents and purposes Destiny is really Halo Next not whatever is put out by 343.  After Halo is probably Gears of War but Epic is the heart of Gears and they've sold the rights to MS so now it's being made by Black Tusk and that's just not the same.  3rd largest is probably Fable by Lionhead but again while MS owns Lionhead the spirit of that company came from Perter Molyneux who has left and formed a new company 22cans working on the PC/Mobile title Godus. The most hyped exclusive game I've seen now is Sunset Overdrive which is by Insomniac who also make PlayStation games so again, while the first one may be an Xbox One exclusive if sales keep going as they are and the game has a sequel there's a good possibility the sequel could be for the PS4 too.

 

Now I'm not saying these other studios are bad, maybe 343 or Black Tusk or Lionhead sans Molyneux will make amazing games but it sure looks like MS is just buying successful brands and farming them off to internal dev teams that had nothing to do with the originals.  That reeks more of trying to cash in on a brand then build it.  Likewise paying for 3rd party "timed" exclusives or buying cross-platform titles and making them exclusive doesn't seem like a winning strategy going forward.  MS either needs to use a strong established brand WITH the developers of that brand on board or they need to make some original first party "must have" game.

[trooper11]

Now I'm not saying these other studios are bad, maybe 343 or Black Tusk or Lionhead sans Molyneux will make amazing games but it sure looks like MS is just buying successful brands and farming them off to internal dev teams that had nothing to do with the originals.  That reeks more of trying to cash in on a brand then build it.  Likewise paying for 3rd party "timed" exclusives or buying cross-platform titles and making them exclusive doesn't seem like a winning strategy going forward.  MS either needs to use a strong established brand WITH the developers of that brand on board or they need to make some original first party "must have" game.

How many games were farmed out to internal dev teams that have nothing to do with the originals and why is that a bad thing? I can think of two: Halo and KI. In both cases, that was done because the original team did not exist to make a new game. MS had no choice there.

Also, lets not forget that Sony has also done similar things. The difference is that Sony made games people wanted, but they clearly bought studios and brought in franchises they did not originally create. They also secured exclusive content and titles over the years. Oh, and they have also put different internal teams on titles that the team did not originally work on.

MS always loses because few like their first party titles.

Its not that MS doesn't invest in first party titles or dev teams, its that the games that get made don't get much fanfare and are mostly dismissed. No one wants Halo, Fable, Gears, Forza, KI, Phantom Dust, Crackdown, etc, etc. Even 2nd party titles like Sunset Overdrive or Scalebound are brushed aside since they are not first party. So I don't really know how MS fixes that unless they just want to take polls and make games based on those polls. I'm sure there is some kind of 180 that could be demanded and then when MS does it, fail to change anything :laugh:

I just think focusing on buying exclusive content as the root cause of MS' issues is incorrect. The practice is not limited to them, so if it was such a terrible problem, there would be outrage elsewhere, but there isn't. No, the problem is pretty simple, not enough games that a majority of gamers want.

[JonnyLH]

Show me the real numbers then. Show me where they are wrong about Xbox One being outsold by Wii U.

 

Show us.

 

Remember this thread is actually about that, not about "ha ha its from vgchartz so I can automatically say its wrong to avoid having to deal with the issue."

 

Taken from their own website:

 

VGChartz publishes over 7,000 unique estimates per week relating to worldwide game hardware and software sales

If they're saying they're estimates, they're guessing. The fact that no credible publication or website uses them tells you everything you need to know. You can't weigh in on a discussion with numbers which someones guesstimated. Even people above have clearly proven their numbers wrong. 

[+Asmodai MVC]

How many games were farmed out to internal dev teams that have nothing to do with the originals and why is that a bad thing?

I gave two examples (Halo and Gears of War) and explained why I think it's bad: "it sure looks like MS is just buying successful brands and farming them off to internal dev teams that had nothing to do with the originals." To elaborate there is a fairly common trend in gaming for a publisher to have control of a brand and if the brand is successful they let go the developers that made it successful and then hire someone cheaper to make, typically inferior quality, games cashing in the the success of the brand. I'm not saying MS IS doing that but what they are doing gives the public the perception they may be.

Also, lets not forget that Sony has also done similar things. The difference is that Sony made games people wanted, but they clearly bought studios and brought in franchises they did not originally create. They also secured exclusive content and titles over the years. Oh, and they have also put different internal teams on titles that the team did not originally work on.

I don't believe I mentioned Sony at all in my post. The point was to say what I thought MS needed to do to turn things around no matter what Sony is doing. I agree though that Sony does similar things but they don't have to change anything because they're winning and due to superior hardware they've pretty much already won all cross-console battles.

I just think focusing on buying exclusive content as the root cause of MS' issues is incorrect. The practice is not limited to them, so if it was such a terrible problem, there would be outrage elsewhere, but there isn't. No, the problem is pretty simple, not enough games that a majority of gamers want.

Why is the Wii U suddenly selling well even though it has vastly inferior hardware to both the Xbox One and the PS4? Because Mario Kart 8 came out and people want to play it. It can only be played on the Wii U. Super Smash Bros. for Wii U is also coming out soon and people are excited about that as well. Hyrule Warriors will likely also drive sales. 1st party exclusives drive sales even more than hardware because the average Joe on the street doesn't know jack about hardware specs. MS bet on the whole "media hub" concept but that clearly failed so what they need is 1st party exclusives. 3rd party exclusives don't work because the third party will likely want to eventually (be it after a "timed" exclusive or even in the next version) go to the competitor if the competitor is selling better. Third parties are going to go where the most customers are. Without true exclusivity and not just timed people tend to be willing to just wait for it to come to the other system. If it's 1st party it's NEVER going to come to the other system so you know if you want to play that game you need to buy the system. Microsoft have no titles such as that and paying for timed exclusives doesn't resolve that issue.

[trooper11]

I gave two examples (Halo and Gears of War) and explained why I think it's bad: "it sure looks like MS is just buying successful brands and farming them off to internal dev teams that had nothing to do with the originals." To elaborate there is a fairly common trend in gaming for a publisher to have control of a brand and if the brand is successful they let go the developers that made it successful and then hire someone cheaper to make, typically inferior quality, games cashing in the the success of the brand. I'm not saying MS IS doing that but what they are doing gives the public the perception they may be.

I don't think its fair to beat MS over the head with a perceived issue when you know its not a real issue. Why don't we try to correct the incorrect perception. 343 is not made of 'cheaper' or 'lower quality' developers. Heck, some people from Bungie stayed behind to join that team. So even 343 has ties to the original halo developers. At least the Gears of War example makes more sense. Black Tusk has no one that originally worked on Gears as far as I know.

I don't believe I mentioned Sony at all in my post. The point was to say what I thought MS needed to do to turn things around no matter what Sony is doing. I agree though that Sony does similar things but they don't have to change anything because they're winning and due to superior hardware they've pretty much already won all cross-console battles.

The problem is that MS does not exist in a vacuum. They have to react to what other companies are doing. Your exactly right that Sony is in the leadership position, so they can get away with similar tactics as long as they continue to do well in other areas.

As far as being the defacto winner on all multiplatform titles, that didn't stop people from analyzing each and every game release for the 360 vs ps3 and its unlikely to stop people from doing them same now. Beyond that, your point is true.

Why is the Wii U suddenly selling well even though it has vastly inferior hardware to both the Xbox One and the PS4? Because Mario Kart 8 came out and people want to play it. It can only be played on the Wii U. Super Smash Bros. for Wii U is also coming out soon and people are excited about that as well. Hyrule Warriors will likely also drive sales. 1st party exclusives drive sales even more than hardware because the average Joe on the street doesn't know jack about hardware specs. MS bet on the whole "media hub" concept but that clearly failed so what they need is 1st party exclusives. 3rd party exclusives don't work because the third party will likely want to eventually (be it after a "timed" exclusive or even in the next version) go to the competitor if the competitor is selling better. Third parties are going to go where the most customers are. Without true exclusivity and not just timed people tend to be willing to just wait for it to come to the other system. If it's 1st party it's NEVER going to come to the other system so you know if you want to play that game you need to buy the system. Microsoft have no titles such as that and paying for timed exclusives doesn't resolve that issue.

MS actually do have 1st party titles, its just that no one likes those games around the internet.

Mario Kart 8 is a bigger deal than any Xbox 1st party title. MS has done nothing but focus on games first since their turn around and yet the 'perception' remains that it lacks any good games. I'm not sure how MS fixes that. Basically, the idea is that not enough people like the exclusives that MS are investing in, so someone needs to figure out what kind of first party games they should be making.

They made a deal with SE for a single timed exclusive, and suddenly everyone forgets about the other games that are out or that have been announced. Suddenly, MS is focusing too much on 3rd party exclusives.

Oh and there is another strange thing MS has to deal with: the pc. Every time an xbox game is also announced for the pc, its taken as a hit against MS for not having enough exclusives. When a game is kept on the Xbox only, its taken as a hit against MS for not caring about pc gaming. It would be nice if MS could release games on xbox and pc without having to worry about a hit. Its a tough balancing act.

[+Asmodai MVC]

I don't think its fair to beat MS over the head with a perceived issue when you know its not a real issue.

There is a BIG difference from saying "I'm not saying MS IS doing that..." and you saying "when you KNOW it's not a real issue" (emphasis added). I KNOW no such thing. I happen to be on that DOES perceive a drop in quality from Halo 1-3 to Halo 4 so in my opinion 343 IS putting out an inferior product to Bungie and MS IS just trying to cash in on the success Bungie generated with the Halo series. I was simply acknowledging that it's subjective so others might think Halo 4 was even better than the first 3 and we've yet to see what Black Tusk will do with Gears of War. I'm certain I'm not alone in my opinion but I do realize it is OPINION so I was just trying to be clear that I'm not trying to pass that off as a proven fact.

MS actually do have 1st party titles, its just that no one likes those games around the internet.

I never claimed MS doesn't have any 1st party titles. I'm not sure what your point is here. My point was just that they don't have any "must have" ones which you seem to agree with in this statement.

Mario Kart 8 is a bigger deal than any Xbox 1st party title. MS has done nothing but focus on games first since their turn around and yet the 'perception' remains that it lacks any good games. I'm not sure how MS fixes that.

I never claimed the Xbox One doesn't have good games. The problem is that the good games it DOES have are 3rd party so will likely be coming to it's competitor in time or the sequel will. Sure they've focused on games but that's not good enough, focusing on cross-console games doesn't help you sell your console over your competitor. They need to focus on what games Xbox One has that PlayStation will NEVER get and those are 1st party games.

Basically, the idea is that not enough people like the exclusives that MS are investing in, so someone needs to figure out what kind of first party games they should be making.

That's what I'm saying.

They made a deal with SE for a single timed exclusive, and suddenly everyone forgets about the other games that are out or that have been announced. Suddenly, MS is focusing too much on 3rd party exclusives.

I don't know where you get this from. I didn't even mention SE. Ryse was a super hyped launch exclusive that wasn't owned by MS. Even if it did great there is a good possibility Ryse 2 could come to PlayStation since MS doesn't own Ryse, that's a problem. Titanfall was touted as a title that was going to turn the platform around. That's not developed OR published by Microsoft so again Titanfall 2 may very well come to PlayStation. This has been an issue from the beginning not just with SE. MS needs to own a premier brand. Maybe they should have bought Crytek or Respawn like they did Bungie if they believed so strongly in those games so they actually own the game and it's designers. Not just buy the rights to the name like Gears but actually hire the originating dev team. I don't have a problem with them buying the developers, that's what they did with Bungie and Halo and it worked well. Buying the rights to the name/setting and farming it out to a new dev team is different though and again reeks of trying to exploit the success of the brand instead of trying to build it up.

Oh and there is another strange thing MS has to deal with: the pc. Every time an xbox game is also announced for the pc, its taken as a hit against MS for not having enough exclusives. When a game is kept on the Xbox only, its taken as a hit against MS for not caring about pc gaming. It would be nice if MS could release games on xbox and pc without having to worry about a hit. Its a tough balancing act.

I'm actually a PC gamer first and I'd like to see EVERY Xbox game released on Windows. I definitely think every first party game should be released on Windows. I don't think having a game release on both PC and Xbox is a problem as they tend to cater to two different audiences. If you enjoy sinking money into your gaming rig for the latest and greatest gfx card and want to play the games at 4k rez then I don't see why MS shouldn't support that. Most people don't want to do that so there is plenty of room for Xbox for everyone who doesn't want to deal with the headaches of PC gaming. I don't see much difference between releasing a game thats for Xbox 360 and Xbox One or a game that Windows and Xbox One. Both games are released on a pair or MS platforms so are MS exclusives.

[trooper11]

There is a BIG difference from saying "I'm not saying MS IS doing that..." and you saying "when you KNOW it's not a real issue" (emphasis added). I KNOW no such thing. I happen to be on that DOES perceive a drop in quality from Halo 1-3 to Halo 4 so in my opinion 343 IS putting out an inferior product to Bungie and MS IS just trying to cash in on the success Bungie generated with the Halo series. I was simply acknowledging that it's subjective so others might think Halo 4 was even better than the first 3 and we've yet to see what Black Tusk will do with Gears of War. I'm certain I'm not alone in my opinion but I do realize it is OPINION so I was just trying to be clear that I'm not trying to pass that off as a proven fact.

343 includes ex Bungee employees, so my point was that it does not fall into the category a game that MS shoved off to a team that had not worked on the franchise at all. Secondly, there was no drop off budget wise when creating Halo 4, so it does not fall into the category of saving MS money. Those are facts that can easily be searched.

Your exactly right that talking about how good or bad a game was is subjective, that's why I'll stick to other points if possible.

 

I never claimed the Xbox One doesn't have good games. The problem is that the good games it DOES have are 3rd party so will likely be coming to it's competitor in time or the sequel will. Sure they've focused on games but that's not good enough, focusing on cross-console games doesn't help you sell your console over your competitor. They need to focus on what games Xbox One has that PlayStation will NEVER get and those are 1st party games.

Your right, MS lacks any good 1st party titles. However, MS is focusing on 1st party content. E3 and Gamescom proved that. Now, all of those games my get rejected, but MS is trying.

Its ok to mix in 3rd party content while you work on 1st party. The competition will do the same.

 

I'm actually a PC gamer first and I'd like to see EVERY Xbox game released on Windows. I definitely think every first party game should be released on Windows. I don't think having a game release on both PC and Xbox is a problem as they tend to cater to two different audiences. If you enjoy sinking money into your gaming rig for the latest and greatest gfx card and want to play the games at 4k rez then I don't see why MS shouldn't support that. Most people don't want to do that so there is plenty of room for Xbox for everyone who doesn't want to deal with the headaches of PC gaming. I don't see much difference between releasing a game thats for Xbox 360 and Xbox One or a game that Windows and Xbox One. Both games are released on a pair or MS platforms so are MS exclusives.

Its great that you feel that way, but most don't share your feelings. That keeps it from happening as much.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Your exactly right that talking about how good or bad a game was is subjective, that's why I'll stick to other points if possible.

Agree, that was why I made the "I'm not saying MS IS doing that..." statement. I just wanted to be clear that I did not agree with your "when you KNOW it's not a real issue" as you seemed to interpret my unwillingness to promote my opinion as fact as an agreement that it isn't an issue, it is not. I do believe it's an issue I just acknowledge it's based on opinion so, as we both seem to agree, there is no real point in debating it.

Your right, MS lacks any good 1st party titles. However, MS is focusing on 1st party content. E3 and Gamescom proved that. Now, all of those games my get rejected, but MS is trying.

I wasn't making a judgement of how MS is doing. I was just saying that I believe what MS needs to turn this around is killer first party titles. I wasn't saying they don't know that or that they aren't trying. Maybe some of the stuff they have announced will become that, I'm not saying it won't. I don't have a lead candidate in my mind (no Xbox One first party titles jump to mind at all atm) but that doesn't mean anything because it's not my decision. Until they get a killer first party title though, be it something already announced or not, they are going to continue to trail the PS4. That's my point.

Its ok to mix in 3rd party content while you work on 1st party. The competition will do the same.

Of course it is, I never said it wasn't. My statements were about 3rd party EXCLUSIVES not 3rd party titles in general. Having as many 3rd parties as possible on your platform is only good for the platform but when most, if not all, of those titles are also on the competition and pretty much all of them run a little better on the competition it doesn't help differentiate you from your competitor. 

Its great that you feel that way, but most don't share your feelings. That keeps it from happening as much.

I feel like MS has thrown PC gamers under the bus to try to ramp up Xbox sales. I don't really get why that is. I don't understand why Xbox gamers would be upset if the game is released on both Windows and Xbox. If the question from the Xbox gamer is "Why bother buying an Xbox if all the 1st party games are going to come out on Windows?" then the answer to that is easy. You'll probably spend more money buying a gaming PC then you would an Xbox One. The average Joe doesn't hook their PC to their living room TV. PCs require far more maintenance and while capable of doing far more as well are also more complex to use. Now I'm a PC gamer so all that's worth it to me but I could certainly see why others wouldn't want to bother.

If I were MS I'd set up a section of the MS Store as the Xbox Games section and I'd release EVERY 1st party Xbox game on it. I'd encourage (but not force) 3rd parties to port their game to PCs as well. I'd let those games access the Xbox cloud services and other features and I'd position it as a Steam alternative. Now you're not going to beat Steam anytime soon but that doesn't mean you can't carve your own little niche in the market. It looks like Games for Windows Live was an attempt to do something like that but it was EXTREMELY poorly executed and I believe MS is capable of much more if they put the resources behind it.

On the flip side there are a lot of PC gamers that don't like that games are "console ports". I'm not a huge of it myself but I realize that it's the reality. PC gamers are a tiny fraction compared to console gamers so developers are going to go where the customers are. I understand and accept that and I realize that those complaining are a vocal minority not a large segment of the gaming public.

[trooper11]

Maybe some of the stuff they have announced will become that, I'm not saying it won't. I don't have a lead candidate in my mind (no Xbox One first party titles jump to mind at all atm) but that doesn't mean anything because it's not my decision. Until they get a killer first party title though, be it something already announced or not, they are going to continue to trail the PS4. That's my point.

Oh I agree little will change until that happens. Its strange that so far, neither the ps4 or X1 have gotten the killer first party title yet. Although maybe that is not so unusual for new consoles. I seem to remember a similar pattern when the ps2 launched. Time is needed for the really good games to start showing up.

Of course it is, I never said it wasn't. My statements were about 3rd party EXCLUSIVES not 3rd party titles in general. Having as many 3rd parties as possible on your platform is only good for the platform but when most, if not all, of those titles are also on the competition and pretty much all of them run a little better on the competition it doesn't help differentiate you from your competitor.

What about combating exclusive 3rd party content? Should MS pursue such deals in order to keep them from winding up exclusive on another platform? If Sony continues to secure exclusive content from 3rd parties, it makes it difficult for MS to not do the same.

I feel like MS has thrown PC gamers under the bus to try to ramp up Xbox sales. I don't really get why that is. I don't understand why Xbox gamers would be upset if the game is released on both Windows and Xbox. If the question from the Xbox gamer is "Why bother buying an Xbox if all the 1st party games are going to come out on Windows?" then the answer to that is easy. You'll probably spend more money buying a gaming PC then you would an Xbox One. The average Joe doesn't hook their PC to their living room TV. PCs require far more maintenance and while capable of doing far more as well are also more complex to use. Now I'm a PC gamer so all that's worth it to me but I could certainly see why others wouldn't want to bother.

If I were MS I'd set up a section of the MS Store as the Xbox Games section and I'd release EVERY 1st party Xbox game on it. I'd encourage (but not force) 3rd parties to port their game to PCs as well. I'd let those games access the Xbox cloud services and other features and I'd position it as a Steam alternative. Now you're not going to beat Steam anytime soon but that doesn't mean you can't carve your own little niche in the market. It looks like Games for Windows Live was an attempt to do something like that but it was EXTREMELY poorly executed and I believe MS is capable of much more if they put the resources behind it.

On the flip side there are a lot of PC gamers that don't like that games are "console ports". I'm not a huge of it myself but I realize that it's the reality. PC gamers are a tiny fraction compared to console gamers so developers are going to go where the customers are. I understand and accept that and I realize that those complaining are a vocal minority not a large segment of the gaming public.

I have always liked the idea of MS treating the pc as just an extension of the xbox platform or vice versa, and you lay it all out very well. The only issue is that not enough people would accept it as you or I would. I'm sure you have seen the reaction around the net when xbox games go to the pc. It happened a lot last gen. MS got hit more and more over the fact that it lacked exclusive titles for the xbox, even when a game only came out on the pc and 360.

If that kind of thinking were to pass, then maybe MS could get away with a more drastic move.

[Emn1ty]

The simple reason why first party titles aren't released on the PC as well is because they aren't made for PC's. Regardless of how similar the two systems are the platforms themselves are different on a hardware level. It would take more time and money to release on both platforms and the game's performance would suffer, especially since the hardware architecture of the One is quite different than your standard PC.

[+Asmodai MVC]

The simple reason why first party titles aren't released on the PC as well is because they aren't made for PC's. Regardless of how similar the two systems are the platforms themselves are different on a hardware level. It would take more time and money to release on both platforms and the game's performance would suffer, especially since the hardware architecture of the One is quite different than your standard PC.

The vast majority of 3rd party games are released for PC in addition to consoles. Sure it takes more time and money but if PC sales didn't more than make up for that then 3rd parties wouldn't do it either. Your argument doesn't make sense.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Oh I agree little will change until that happens. Its strange that so far, neither the ps4 or X1 have gotten the killer first party title yet. Although maybe that is not so unusual for new consoles. I seem to remember a similar pattern when the ps2 launched. Time is needed for the really good games to start showing up.

I think it seems worse this time for me because this is the for PS I've had that didn't have backwards compatibility. My PS2 played my PS1 games when it came out so I had tons of games to play. Since I got a launch PS3 it played my PS2 games as well. The PS4 doesn't play any of my old games so I have to sit around and wait for games I want to come out after I beat each new one. They are attempting to fill the gap via indy titles and while I'm a huge supporter of indies on PC it sits wrong with me that I bought a $400 console to play a ton of indy games.

What about combating exclusive 3rd party content? Should MS pursue such deals in order to keep them from winding up exclusive on another platform? If Sony continues to secure exclusive content from 3rd parties, it makes it difficult for MS to not do the same.

Let me be clear, I personally think 3rd party exclusives are bad thing for MS or Sony to do. That's a different conversation though. My point here was just that MS needs must have first party exclusives and buying 3rd party exclusives is no substitute for that.

I have always liked the idea of MS treating the pc as just an extension of the xbox platform or vice versa, and you lay it all out very well. The only issue is that not enough people would accept it as you or I would. I'm sure you have seen the reaction around the net when xbox games go to the pc. It happened a lot last gen. MS got hit more and more over the fact that it lacked exclusive titles for the xbox, even when a game only came out on the pc and 360.

I'm not convinced the majority has an issue with it. I happen to think the complainers are a vocal minority but I could be totally wrong. It's not like I've done or seen a ton of market research on the topic. No matter what you do though there are going to be people complaining on the internet about it. That's the reality today, especially if you're MS.