Print 52 comment(s) - last by someguy123.. on Jun 3 at 12:30 AM

Microsoft Xbox One will have at least 15 exclusive games

One of the good things about being the largest software company on the planet is that you have a seriously big checkbook. Given its generous cash position, Microsoft has reportedly spent $1 billion securing exclusive games for the launch of the Xbox One game console.
It's good to hear that Microsoft is spending significant money to secure impressive games for its coming game console after some came away from the unveil of the device with an impression that it was more focused on streaming video and entertainment than gaming.

The $1 billion Microsoft plans to invest in exclusive games will get Xbox One users 15 exclusive titles in the first year the console is available including a few completely new franchises. Microsoft has also spent significant money on beefing up its staff including hiring former Sony exec Phil Harrison to manage internal products and developer relations in Europe.

Rare Ltd is also reportedly working to bring one of its iconic franchises back to gamers in something that Microsoft executives are billing as a "historic" revival. Microsoft is also securing game from Black Task Studios that is said to be an action title designed to compete with Halo and Gears of War.

Another interesting title that has been talked about briefly is called Quantum Break; the trailer for that game turned up a while back and can be viewed here

Source: OXM

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Killer Instinct
By CZroe on 5/30/2013 10:15:28 AM , Rating: 3
"Rare Ltd is also reportedly working to bring one of its iconic franchises back to gamers in something that Microsoft executives are billing as a "historic" revival."

As a huger Killer Instinct fan who hates what Rare has become, let me just say: I hope it isn't Killer Instinct.

RE: Killer Instinct
By AMDftw on 5/30/2013 10:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
Now that would be F'in' AWESOME!!!!

RE: Killer Instinct
By Mitch101 on 5/30/2013 10:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft settles its legal dispute with Fox and can finally make a new Killer Instinct

Is anything really a secret any more? This could be a lot of fun as a Kinect Title instead of button mashing.

RE: Killer Instinct
By amanojaku on 5/30/2013 10:32:37 AM , Rating: 2
Wish it was Battletoads...

RE: Killer Instinct
By Asetha on 5/31/2013 3:16:18 AM , Rating: 2
I still can't get past the damn rocket sea-doo levels with an emulator.

RE: Killer Instinct
By Flunk on 5/30/2013 10:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
Oh god I hope not.

RE: Killer Instinct
By StevoLincolnite on 5/30/2013 10:30:35 AM , Rating: 2
A new Killer Instinct couldn't be any worse than Perfect Dark Zero could it?

RE: Killer Instinct
By Flunk on 5/30/2013 10:36:13 AM , Rating: 2
Really? I hope it is, the worst case scenario is that they make a terrible game. That doesn't make their old games suddenly worse. The best case scenario is an awesome new KI. Seeing how 2D fighters are making a comeback this could sell pretty well.

RE: Killer Instinct
By CZroe on 5/30/2013 10:40:26 AM , Rating: 2
It could ruin the chance of a competant developer being interested in it and sour the current generation of gamers to the name.

RE: Killer Instinct
By althaz on 5/30/2013 10:51:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm praying for a Goldeneye remake. I still play that game (via emulators, my N64 is long since dead).

RE: Killer Instinct
By StevoLincolnite on 5/30/2013 11:00:08 AM , Rating: 2
Rare doesn't hold the rights to it unfortunately.

Although, Nintendo did have a remake appear on the Wii.

RE: Killer Instinct
By CZroe on 5/30/2013 11:04:43 AM , Rating: 2
Uh, that remake was made on other platforms too. It was a temporary Wii exclusive. Not having the rights doesn't stop them from getting them. Even exclusive rights to another dev/pub over years only means that they have to form a working relationship with that dev/pub. They DID promise us a sequel in the credits.

RE: Killer Instinct
By CZroe on 5/30/2013 11:02:06 AM , Rating: 2
My friends and I play multi-player N64 games almost every weekend and holiday. We are more evenly matched in Mario Kart 64 so we usually end up playing that to the exclusion of 007 Goldeneye, but 007 does work surprisingly well on a modern TV with S-Video (supports anamorphic 16:9!). We prefer it on a Sony XBR910 CRT television so the scaled resolution doesn't look as bad as LCD. We refuse to play on emulators because we only have three Adaptoids for accurate input. We can play Mario Kart on the Wii without wearing out the N64 controllers, but the emulated controller conversion causes constant issues.

RE: Killer Instinct
By EnzoFX on 5/30/2013 2:55:37 PM , Rating: 3
I hope it's Conker, that game was one of the best games I've ever played, in anything.

RE: Killer Instinct
By CZroe on 5/30/2013 6:23:03 PM , Rating: 1
DIAF. Conker was the first game that made me realize that Rare was losing it. I enjoyed the fetch-quest aspects of Banjo-Kazooie, but it was clear that after they lost the Goldeneye team to Free Radical that they were nothing but fetch-quests now. Conker, Donkey Kong 64, Dinosaur Planet/Star Fox Adventures, and hell: even Donkey Kong Country 3 had a lot of that crap.

Conker only amused the immature with it's supposed "maturity."

RE: Killer Instinct
By EnzoFX on 5/30/2013 6:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
Immaturity aside, the gameplay was top notch. The multiplayer was even better.

RE: Killer Instinct
By someguy123 on 6/3/2013 12:30:16 AM , Rating: 2
what...the game had bunch of TPS segments, platforming, dungrolling, dinosaur/tank riding, and your conventional rotating bosses. Only times you really needed to fetch things were some pieces of cash strewn around, and those zombies for the grinder. Otherwise I remember rolling things more frequently than fetching.

A commendable move
By karimtemple on 5/30/2013 10:40:31 AM , Rating: 3
Spending a billion on exclusives shows Microsoft has their heads in the game. Exclusive software is how you push a platform. They've also put together some really great convergence and pretty sweet features. But honestly the billion probably would've gone a lot farther as three 300-million-dollar projects than fifteen 65-million-dollar publisher payoffs.

And then the problems start; The asterisks sitting beside all their great bullet points. Will all this crazy DRM/always-on/daily update stuff really happen? Will the PS4 finally get a good UI? Will the PS4 have HDMI in (this would be a huge blow to XBO)? Will MS keep making me pay for XBL Gold just to use a Netflix subscription I already pay for?

Plus the PS4 has a "pretty much 50% more graphics performance" bullet point to tout. That's kind of a big deal.

RE: A commendable move
By jabber on 5/30/2013 10:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yet MS is very aware that the developers will code to the base level..which will be the One.

MS has just pushed Sony to make a more expensive/powerful machine that will largely go untapped on a lot of cross platform games. Also if it's more expensive it will hit Sony as they will either have to price the PS4 higher than the One or sell it cheaper and take a hit.

Either way Sony is in a more tough position financially than MS at this point. Sony doesn't have billions to throw away like MS has.

This round will be a war of attrition.

RE: A commendable move
By karimtemple on 5/30/2013 11:06:43 AM , Rating: 3
The difference will hardly be untapped this go around. The architecture is largely the same, and the (slightly) simpler platform is actually the PS4. Even cross-platform games will have a noticeable difference at little to no effort from the developer. This is not your daddy's console generation.

People believe developers build for the "lowest common denominator," but this is just an urban legend. A really popular urban legend. The truth is developers build for their target platform, which is invariably the one with the most installed units. A userbase winner remains to be seen, also at the beginning it's the same as if there was a userbase tie -- the target platform becomes the easier platform.

The easier platform being the more powerful platform is a best-case scenario, and that's what we presently have with the PS4. The outcome to expect is fairly clear.

RE: A commendable move
By SPOOFE on 5/30/2013 4:51:59 PM , Rating: 3
The truth is developers build for their target platform, which is invariably the one with the most installed units.

Only in cases in which one platform is clearly dominant. 360 vs. PS3 is extremely close, and developing for only one platform cuts off almost 50% of potential sales. Even losing out on 20-30% is a consideration not to be taken lightly.

The only thing that balances that out is "exclusives", hence the fat payments from the Big Consoles to make up for that near-50% lost sales potential.

The easier platform being the more powerful platform is a best-case scenario, and that's what we presently have with the PS4. The outcome to expect is fairly clear.

You're clearly not a student of history. Last generation? Weakest console was the winner.

RE: A commendable move
By mcnabney on 5/30/2013 6:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
The platforms are so similar now, the developers can just develop for the PC and just turn down aliasing or detail level to fit each different console platform.

RE: A commendable move
By Bateluer on 5/30/2013 11:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
The Wii made have some more units, but once Nintendo reached market saturation with it, ie, everyone who wanted one had one, they stopped making money off it. The complete lack of games meant that they receive pretty much zilch in royalties, leading to their current dire financial straits.

The X360 and PS3 moved fewer consoles, but the game sales will ensure MS & Sony continue to make money on them even after they've been replaced by the XOne and PS4.

RE: A commendable move
By jabber on 5/31/2013 6:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
I remember a quote from one of the editors of a big games review website. The reviewers would almost fight to review the 360/PS3 games and whomever lost the fight would have to review the Wii games.

No one wanted to review the Wii games.

RE: A commendable move
By karimtemple on 5/31/2013 8:42:33 AM , Rating: 2
360 vs. PS3 is extremely close
And once again, when it's close the target development platform tends to become the one that's easier to develop for.

In the beginning that was the 360, by far. After several years, the PS3 became a lot easier to develop for than before, and it also surpassed the 360 in software tie ratio for North America. Accordingly, we began to see more multiplatform games coming out last year that were ported from the PS3, not to.
Last generation? Weakest console was the winner.
The weakest console was the Wii. The software tie ratio was lower and the prices were lower. It generally was not the target platform for AAA titles.

RE: A commendable move
By jabber on 5/31/2013 7:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
I dont think many folks consider the Wii to really be alongside the 360 and PS3.

Say the 360 and PS3 were Gen 3.0 well Wii was kinds Gen 2.5.

Like the Wii U is Gen 3.5.

RE: A commendable move
By althaz on 5/30/13, Rating: -1
RE: A commendable move
By karimtemple on 5/30/2013 11:14:39 AM , Rating: 3
a) The specs are pretty clear. 50% is a slightly conservative estimate based on the assumption that Microsoft will maximize the design of their eSRAM part.

b) Exclusives are a best-case scenario for big software, as development resources are not spread thin by the porting process. The only reason you hate them is because if you wanted the software you'd [potentially] have to buy extra hardware.

If the rest of the PS4's design philosophy is any sign, the PS4 controller will feel and play pretty much like the 360 controller.

RE: A commendable move
By Ramstark on 5/30/2013 1:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, we get it, you are a PS4 fan, now please stop trolling and returning to the same discussion that has been settled so many times on so many sites...

RE: A commendable move
By karimtemple on 5/30/2013 1:32:49 PM , Rating: 1
Trolling - v., Praising a product's design philosophy and feature set, voicing concerns about the product's DRM implementation, and considering one physical and documented advantage of its competitor.

RE: A commendable move
By inperfectdarkness on 5/31/2013 2:49:51 AM , Rating: 3
Three thoughts:

1. MS's approach to XBOX continues to be "we will burn piles of money to push this down consumer's throats". This was the modus operandi since the original xbox hit the market. Nothing has changed. The cynics among us question a company that has to willingly suffer so much red ink...just to bully their way into a market. It certainly appears that xbox never competes on its on merits, so much as it compete's on MS's marketing dime.

2. 1 billion on exclusive titles doesn't amount to a hill of beans if MS is going to beat everyone over the head with DRM. You would think they would have learned from EA that DRM can kill games; but based on windows 8, it would appear that MS can barely conduct a SURVEY of consumer trends, let alone actually follow them.

3. Rare needs to DIAF. They were going downhill before the Nintendo breakup, and they've just slid further. MS's conduct of it's 3rd party acquisitions is only behind EA and Activision in how bad things go rapidly downhill.

RE: A commendable move
By karimtemple on 5/31/2013 8:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
1. That's Sony's approach too. Specifically. The PSX was a pile-o-cash project born almost out of sheer spite, and the Xbox was a trojan horse strategy to ensure the market viewed Microsoft as a legitimate player -- to pave the way for the 360. Nintendo is the only one of the three that doesn't operate this way.

2. You'd be surprised how many people will buy software anyway. DRM is only really a problem as far as moving product if it's implemented in an obtrusive way. Keeping you from buying used games is one thing, but making it difficult to use your system or get into your game is an entirely other thing. If they can avoid making things difficult, or ruining the flow of using the system, the whole DRM thing could end up being a mostly academic argument.

3. I think what happened is Nintendo started stepping on Rare's toes, squeezing the life out of them, and Microsoft was even worse and finished the job.

5 Games for a Billion
By Outofbubblegum on 5/30/2013 10:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
So, I'm supposed to buy a new console $$$$$$ that isn't backwards compatible, so I can only play 5 new $80+ dollar games?

Pretty stupid to me.

RE: 5 Games for a Billion
By jabber on 5/30/2013 10:49:27 AM , Rating: 2
Erm...when/if you buy a Xbox One your existing 360 will not vanish in a puff of smoke. It will still be there.

I just wanted to clear that up as a lot of children seem to think the Xbox fairy will take it away when the new one arrives.

And don't give the "I live in a wardrobe!" excuse. If playing your old games is that important you'll find a way.

Maybe throw out some of those silly manga figurines to make room?

RE: 5 Games for a Billion
By EnzoFX on 5/30/2013 3:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I myself am sick and tired of the backwards compatibility argument. Sure it was a good selling point, but that's all it ever seemed to be, something to put on the box, a gimmick in the end. I never knew anyone that bought a new console, to play older games. This is one thing that needs to stop. I don't like the idea of more expensive hardware, just to satisfy those few that insist on their consoles playing every xbox 360 and xbox 1 game on it. Even if it wasn't hardware, it'd be emulation software, that too takes work/resources/money which = more expensive console for the rest of us. Why the hell should we have to help cover that if we don't want it? I wouldn't be opposed to a more expensive console for those that do, but surely you realize that would be against the purpose of a console, and also it'd be a bad way to manage resources. You are slowing things down if MS isn't fully focused on pushing the new stuff, rather than having them pursue something that is only a nice selling point to put on the box....

RE: 5 Games for a Billion
By Outofbubblegum on 5/30/2013 3:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
Again, it's the argument of Coke vs. New Coke.

Why should I spend over $1,000 dollars for a console that I can only play 5 games at its release? Are you telling me that the "Wow" factor will be so incredible that it's a "MUST HAVE" item versus the current 360? Why not a 4k TV? New Mac Laptop? 17" Dell Laptop? Carnival Cruse for that $1,000 dollars?

Should I just keep the $900 and just buy ten $10 dollar games and wait for the Sony vs MS price war?

RE: 5 Games for a Billion
By karimtemple on 5/30/2013 3:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
Why should I spend over $1,000 dollars for a console
.....what console is $1,000?
Why not a 4k TV?
You found a 4K TV for $1,000???

Forgive my ignorance but I have no idea what $1,000 console you're talking about.

RE: 5 Games for a Billion
By corduroygt on 5/30/2013 6:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
Not $1000, but close enough @ $11258:

RE: 5 Games for a Billion
By mcnabney on 5/30/2013 6:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
You can get a 50" 4K TV for $1,300 right now.... and it is actually getting decent reviews.

RE: 5 Games for a Billion
By karimtemple on 5/31/2013 8:00:42 AM , Rating: 2
Why would I spend $1300 (!) on a 50-inch that doesn't even have good PQ? I laugh.

RE: 5 Games for a Billion
By inighthawki on 5/30/2013 3:48:40 PM , Rating: 3
Nobody said you had to run out and buy one on launch day.

The whole backwards compatibility argument is weak from the beginning anyway. Only a handful of consoles ever had this kind of support, and those that did were often the same hardware architecture (GC->Wii->Wii-u, the last of which dropped GC support). PS2 played PS1 games and PS3 BREIFLY played PS2 games but support was dropped shortly after.

Nobody expected the XBO to be backwards compatible, and yet it is thrown around like some kind of massive disadvantage. News flash, PS4 won't play PS3 games either!

If you want to play 360 games, buy a 360 or continue using the one you have. Even with backwards compatibility support, I fail to see how getting an xbox one would let you play more than 5 games if you already have a 360 and library of 360 games. 360 games don't somehow become more special when playing on the xbox one.

RE: 5 Games for a Billion
By EnzoFX on 5/30/2013 4:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying it's a way to justify the cost? Because you'll be able to play more games?

I think that's a pretty bad way to look at it. For one, you're increasing it's cost by demanding backwards compatibility. Second, you can play those games now, you won't gain anything in gameplay from playing it on another box. Second, cost is definitely a big deal, which is why we want adoption to be quick, so that it reaches everyone's personal price threshold quicker. No one says you need to buy at launch, but the rate of adoption and the price points do contribute greatly towards that goal. Let the early adopters see those benefits first, so you can get yours cheaper sooner. Early adopters want much more tangible benefits, rather than a gimmick selling point.

1 billion?
By GulWestfale on 5/30/2013 10:16:59 AM , Rating: 1
that works out to 66 million per title, doesn't it? that's a huge risk for MS to take. sure, halo and other assorted junk targeted towards people who are too young to play such games will move millions of units, but for that kind of dough they better produce some truly outstanding titles as well.
sure, not every game can be a grand theft auto or an LA noire, but i think it'd be embarrassing if they didn't at least try to make some truly epic stuff here... imagine how many hundreds of rehashed sports titles EA could push out the door with this kind of a budget (shudders).

RE: 1 billion?
By 3DoubleD on 5/30/2013 10:40:42 AM , Rating: 4
Don't know why you are hating on Halo. Give me a Halo 1 remake with a fully function multiplayer (LAN and online) and you can take my wallet.

Halo 1 might not be the best "technical" FPS out there. But when it comes to appealing to a broad group of people, I've never seen anything like Halo 1 nor have I ever had so much fun. While a tiny fraction of my friends might play Battlefield (1/2/3), hands down all of them would want to play a Halo 1 deathmatch. Give me Blood Gultch, Sidewinder, and Battle Creek, all the original weapons, and a damn health bar!

Would cost them... $1 million? Fixing the engine for online play would be the hardest part. Otherwise the game code should be highly compatible with the hardware. Sell it as a digital download for $20 (I wish)...$30 ... easy money.

RE: 1 billion?
By themaster08 on 5/30/2013 11:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
This already exists on the Xbox 360. It's called Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary.

RE: 1 billion?
By tayb on 5/30/2013 12:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
No online play.

RE: 1 billion?
By 3DoubleD on 5/31/2013 3:08:31 AM , Rating: 2
Ya I bought that game. Playing the campaign online with friends was fun, especially with the skulls, but the on screen multiplayer was that crappy Halo Reach multiplayer - just terrible. We gave it a good try, but it was nowhere near as good as the original Halo 1 multiplayer.

RE: 1 billion?
By andrewaggb on 5/30/2013 11:55:45 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah Halo 1 has a fond place in my heart. It was lots of fun. We used to have 16 player lan parties with Halo PC, and it was some of the most fun we ever had playing a video game.

RE: 1 billion?
By mcnabney on 5/30/2013 6:56:20 PM , Rating: 2
Halo PC was completely inferior to the competition at the time.

By tayb on 5/30/2013 11:26:50 AM , Rating: 2
That $1 billion would have been much better spent subsidizing the cost of the console. At $400 Microsoft could have given away a console to the first 2.5 million buyers. Or they could have lowered the price to $200 for the first 5 million buyers.

I seriously doubt the 15 exclusive titles they have paid for will generate anywhere near 2.5 - 5 million extra Xbox One sales. This generation of consoles will likely last 10+ years. A big lead at the beginning could have been huge and would have definitely attracted developers anyway.

A good thing?
By KFZ on 5/30/2013 2:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
It's good to hear that Microsoft is spending significant money to secure impressive games for its coming game console*

*If you like the XB One so far, and would buy one.

To those that do not, don't like the direction that the console is moving or maybe aren't in the Xbox camp at all, how is this a good thing?

At least $200m+ USD salary major-league baseball teams play head-to-head on the same field as rosters that are paid less than injured Yankees. This isn't even competing.

Don't get me wrong, it is a smart business move, but so is buying software patents.

XBox 1?
By texbrazos on 5/31/2013 5:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
Could they have not thought of a better name? This is not the first XBox soooo... why would you call it XBox 1?

"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki