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

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.

"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson
Related Articles

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