• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Post-Sony's PS Conference, Does Microsoft Lack An IP/Char With Enough Mass-Market/Mainstream Appeal?

Does Microsoft need to focus more on big-brand character-driven content (single-player or not)?

  • Yes

    Votes: 152 42.3%
  • No

    Votes: 121 33.7%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 21 5.8%
  • Doesn't Really Matter

    Votes: 65 18.1%

  • Total voters
    359
  • Poll closed .

ZywyPL

Gold Member
I might be wrong but I think gaming companies should have games first and foremost, not mascots... Does licensing a big, recognizable franchise help? Of course it does, it lets you to tack on already existing, huge fanbase, as seen with Insomniac whose games never sold in more than just a few MLN units. Same deal with Star Wars games, just the name alone will lure a lot of players, no matter the genre and quality of the game. But here in some people's minds a game that's played by 5M people years after launch has no legs, whereas 500k copies sold is a mega hit... MS does just fine, they have many successful IPs, each with a large dedicated fanbase, I mean, they know the best where people spend their time and money on, and they'll continue to deliver exactly that.
 

DrAspirino

Banned
I have no ideia about MS.

Sony just keep showing and delivering games.



You were saying? :messenger_sunglasses:

Back on topic, Microsoft and its studios already have memorable characters, being the most memorable Master Chief and Cortana. Sure, they're not Nintendo (with Mario and Pikachu being cultural icons), but then again, who can compare themselves with a behemoth like that? I mean... Mario and Pikachu are at the same level as Mikey Mouse or Bugs Bunny ffs.
 
Last edited:

ethomaz

Banned


You were saying? :messenger_sunglasses:

Back on topic, Microsoft and its studios already have memorable characters, being the most memorable Master Chief and Cortana. Sure, they're not Nintendo (with Mario and Link being cultural icons), but then again, who can compare themselves with a behemoth like that? I mean... Mario and Link are at the same level as Mikey Mouse or Bugs Bunny ffs.
Maybe it is hard to understand but you picture agree with what I said and it is a issue for MS.
 
Give Xbox time to craft their own characters/IP with enough mass market appeal.

They've just dumped ridiculous amounts of money into their 1st party studios. We can't ask these questions now. It will take a few years for us to see what they have planned and then we can revisit this question.

Absolutely, and we know that's what Microsoft is doing right now. There is too much potential with stuff like Psychonauts, Starfield, Hellblade etc. to not build them up into the larger mass-market franchises they deserve to be.

But, I think we can ask questions like the thread topic right now, too. Because this is a complicated industry, and these are massive companies that should be able to work on multiple points of interest at once. Why can't Microsoft do what you're saying, and at the same time, secure a license or two of a massively popular and well-known IP brand that has potential for a high-quality 1P game from one of their interested studios? Because you gotta address the now just as much as the future.

Batman second to spiderman? You gotta be joking. Batman is the best superhero ever.

Globally speaking SpiderMan is the more popular character, but Batman probably isn't that far behind. Although SuperMan might be slightly more popular than Batman, again globally speaking.

As others have said, Minecraft is the biggest selling game of all time, with more mass market mainstream appeal than any sony franchise they can ever dream of.

Thread is ridiculous.

I've never once said that Minecraft isn't a juggernaut; that franchise probably generates $1 billion a year in revenue which is a lot more than any other franchise outside of arguably GTA 5 and COD.

But how many people among that Minecraft base associate Minecraft as a Microsoft IP the way people everywhere associate Mario as a Nintendo IP? THAT'S part of the point of the whole thread: even aside proven brand power and cultural mindshare, do Microsoft and Xbox as brands benefit from the power of those IPs in way other companies like Sony do from SpiderMan, or Nintendo from Mario?

If the answer is "no", then the biggest reason is because a lot of people probably don't associate a brand like Minecraft with Microsoft or Xbox in an overwhelmingly dominant way.

Perhaps not, but they (Microsoft) currently have just as likely a chance as they did during the 360 peak (Banjo, Viva Pinata, Conker etc)
While I agree that LBP isn't a "high watermark" the adorable Sackboy has become a mascot of Sony enough that he got his own Mario 3D World-eqse adventure ;)

During the PS2 Sony did indeed rely heavily on exclusive 3rd party, but they still built Franchises as well (Jak, Ratchet, Sly, Twisted Metal) and I would agree with you which I'm fine with if Sony is helping fund these projects in some way.

Yeah it's true they did build new IP franchises during the PS2 gen; not all of them worked out for the best (The Getaway, Mark of Kri, Parappa basically died that gen after Parappa 2, Mr.Mosquito, Dark Cloud etc.) but a few others certainly did.

If we're talking in terms of weight tho, it was the 3P exclusives that drove the PS2 ahead and made it the platform it'd come to be remembered by. If it were just Sony 1P pushing PS2 and a lot of those 3P exclusives ended up multiplat, it would not have reached the marketshare it did.

I mentioned this, the problem with the Zenimax purchase (yes I mean those words lol) is that these are established WELL KNOWN publishers...and Bethesda in particular will take some time before people associate it as a MS property...For a while Doom, Elderscrolls etc will be seen as Bethesda by the masses rather than a Microsoft property

Yep, that's the biggest issue here and I kind of think them letting Bethesda still brand themselves as separate contributes to this somewhat. While I get why they're doing it from a business POV, it also encourages a lot of people to still view them as a separate brand from Microsoft and Xbox the way Minecraft is still seen as separate, for example.

Maybe Microsoft wants it that way, but it also means it'll take a lot longer for those outside of the Xbox ecosystem to see them as Microsoft IP.

As mentioned above while I think that these new entries will do just fine (maybe even great with the MS funding) I still see many looking at them as Bethesda IP's rather than MS...They have Doublefine to help give them a quirky identity unfortunately (in regards to this specific topic) the Phenominal Psychonauts will be seen by many as a multi-plat rather than a MS exclusive IP due to the PS4 assurances through Fig when the contract was signed.

Yeah, that's something that can be seen as a negative if you're someone at Microsoft involved in trying to drive up brand power and mindshare of the brand, but the upside is that they've introduced Psychonauts to a whole new generation of gamers who probably didn't grow up with or even played the original.

That has a big group of potential new fans for a Psychonauts 3 that stays in the Xbox & GamePass ecosystem, for example.

Well I have some good news for you, I don't like those games.

I also don't need to delude myself with an alternate history wherein everything was fine and dandy for Xbox first party last generation and believe they didn't have a quality issue.

Fine, but your anecdotal feelings on this don't change the facts; I'm pointing to larger data and hard numbers in review scores directly, and general feedback from fans of those games. By and large your argument on lack of quality from Microsoft 1P over the past several years only applies to a fraction of their 1P output, statistically speaking.

Separate your personal feelings out of this and just look at the facts as they exist. And admitting this doesn't mean I'm pretending things were "fine and dandy" for Xbox as a brand or even their 1P last generation, either. But a lot of those problems come from failure of brand optics, bad messaging, poor business investments and broken promises (i.e cancelled games). The argument for lack of quality can only really be laid on diminishing quality of the Halo games, Gears (up until Gears 5), lack of polish in games like ReCore (which nonetheless should've been given a sequel to build upon), and the embarrassment of Crackdown 3.

The other two issues they had last gen were lack of funding for AAA 1P content and rushed initial releases of a couple games namely Sea of Thieves, but those don't fall under "quality issues", moreso brand mismanagement and perception issues.
 

MrLove

Banned
Master Chief , thread can be closed now …
You will understand that many people don't want to do Halo Infinity to each other after Halo 5, Halo 4 and Halo MC. that was almost ten years of huge disappointments and the slow death of a once glorious franchise. the bad ratings of halo 5 didn't make it any better either.

343 still has a long way to go to arrive in the era of modern shooters
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
There's no doubt that Sony are building off a lot of work that Marvel and...Sony Pictures (let's be real, Disney hasn't been the one doing the lionshare of work for the Spidy films, credit goes to Sony Pictures there) put in for the character in the years and decades prior. But it doesn't change the fact that it's Sony in terms of the gaming space who are the chief beneficiaries of that work, today. Right now. And that's the part which is ultimately important here.

I don't see why the idea of major mascots and game genre diversity are mutually exclusive tho? I mean, you can have both, and in some ways Nintendo shows that. Look at the variety in the various Mario games for example. And teh truth is, you need both in order to have a successful gaming platform ecosystem.

I'm not even saying Microsoft doesn't have major mascots; they have Master Chief after all, for example. My question has and will continue to be, tho: do they have anything which can dominate the cultural mindshare and participate in the zeitgeist in a way comparable to SpiderMan, or Mario, or GTA or Fortnite? And, once again, this has nothing to inherently do with the game's objective quality, moreso about certain character design/world design/narrative design elements that speak to audiences at a more emotional level.



That's interesting and it's something of a bad decision if true. I don't get why they are being so either/or on it; both strategies can work if applied correctly. I mean, Sony is essentially doing just that and look at what it is getting them 🤷‍♂️

I've also been thinking a bit if maybe Microsoft are being too insistent on getting big releases from 3Ps in GamePass Day 1 and if that could have, or is, costing them certain timed exclusivity deals with the larger 3P releases. Because on that note if you think about it, what has GamePass had since Outriders and MLB The Show '21 along major AA/AAA 3P releases into GamePass? Not much. What 3P AAA timed exclusives have they had for Xbox since then? None that I can think of.

So I'm definitely curious if there's a correlation and, if so, do believe Microsoft should ease up on it because that could be hurting both not only GamePass but Xbox too, and anything that ends up hurting Xbox definitely hurts GamePass, but the opposite doesn't necessarily always hold true.



Hey, you can like those games just fine and there's no problem with that, but let's face the facts here: they were both very poorly received by critics, especially The Tomorrow Children. We can simply look at the Meta scores for both and see this is true.

And no, quality hasn't been the issue for many of their 1P and 3P co-funded games because, again, we can simply look at the Meta scores. All the Forza games have scored high. Cuphead was well-received, same with the two Ori games. Sunset Overdrive was received okay but was very inventive (and deserved a sequel; hopefully it gets one now under Sony). TitanFall was very well-received and let to a popular cult franchise. Even games like Gears 5 were pretty decently received hitting mid-80s Meta.

That's hard evidence right there which is exactly why I said what I said from the get-go. But that said, Meta scores shouldn't absolutely be the determining factor for if someone enjoys a game, so if you subjectively enjoy something like The Order 1886 or Tomorrow Children more than the games I just mentioned, that's perfectly fine.



Lol I can understand the sentiment, but to me it's not about Microsoft lapping up rights for big AAA superhero games. It could be, say, doing something with the Star Trek license, or The Matrix, or maybe Breaking Bad or some J-Drama or K-Drama for those markets. If they have 1P teams that would be interested and passionate, and MS could work out a good licensing deal, why not tap into funding an Xbox & GamePass exclusive with those type of IP, or even a few of them?

They can do that while simultaneously still investing in original IP and building them up for long-term brand power and cultural mindshare relevance. Win-win situation all around.



Still not sure how true this is. Does Minecraft have advertising that specifically puts Microsoft in there as the mention? Also let's say people do associate the brand with Microsoft, but do they associate it as an Xbox IP or a brand mainly affiliated with Xbox? Because those could still be two different things and them associating it with Microsoft may not necessarily benefit the Xbox brand if it's in the way they associate, say, a MGS with Konami but still view that as a PlayStation IP.



This is statistically a false narrative and needs to die. The vast majority of gams on GamePass are 75 or better MetaCritic scores, and a healthy percentage of them are 80 or higher. In terms of content curation GamePass is probably the best service in the industry going by pure statistical averages.

If you want a place where mediocrity thrives with little to no filtration, look at Nintendo's eShop. That suits this type of narrative better.

Its a subjective opinion, not a "false narrative". Also, Metacritic/OpenCritic means literally nothing when the vast majority of those reviewers/sites are from the same inbred group of bigotted fuckwits that make up the modern gaming "journalist" industry. Their words and views mean as much to me as a wadded up used piece of toilet paper after a night at Taco Bell.
 

DrAspirino

Banned
That is exactly my point… delivery > promises.
Okay... let's see what's in 2021 from PlayStation Studios.
  • Death Stranding Director's Cut
  • Ghost of Tsushima Director's Cut
  • MLB The Show 21
  • Ratchet & Clank Rift Apart
  • Returnal
  • Nioh Remastered
Grand total of 6.

So... 6 from SIE, which all have been either released or soon to be released during this year. Care to tell me how come that Sony "delivers", while other major publisher releases more games in the same amount of time?

Heck, even Microsoft, which is often critizised of "not delivering" has 8 games in store for this 2021.

If you ask me, I'd say it's SIE the ones that doesn't deliver compared to gaming leviathans such as EA or Ubisoft.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member


You were saying? :messenger_sunglasses:

Back on topic, Microsoft and its studios already have memorable characters, being the most memorable Master Chief and Cortana. Sure, they're not Nintendo (with Mario and Pikachu being cultural icons), but then again, who can compare themselves with a behemoth like that? I mean... Mario and Pikachu are at the same level as Mikey Mouse or Bugs Bunny ffs.
It would be nice to add Demon's Souls, Astro, Miles Morales and Sackboy. I'd merge the "2023" and "2024 and beyond" to "2023 and beyond" because I'm not sure if some of these games have been announced for 2023 or if will be ready for then, maybe Ghostwire Tokyo is maybe the only one assuming the traditional 1 year for the timed exclusives.

Okay... let's see what's in 2021 from PlayStation Studios.
  • Death Stranding Director's Cut
  • Ghost of Tsushima Director's Cut
  • MLB The Show 21
  • Ratchet & Clank Rift Apart
  • Returnal
  • Nioh Remastered
Grand total of 6.

So... 6 from SIE, which all have been either released or soon to be released during this year. Care to tell me how come that Sony "delivers", while other major publisher releases more games in the same amount of time?

Heck, even Microsoft, which is often critizised of "not delivering" has 8 games in store for this 2021.

If you ask me, I'd say it's SIE the ones that doesn't deliver compared to gaming leviathans such as EA or Ubisoft.
Sony also had the big bombs Horizon 2, GoW and GT7 planned for this year but were delayed, and had a more consistent output year after year. As an example last year they had Dreams, TLOU2, GoT, Morales+Spider-Man remaster, Sackboy, Demon's Souls, Astro and maybe something else I forgot.

And well, regarding their exclusives line-up strategy Sony also focus on getting a good chunk of cool 3rd party exclusives of all kinds: big and small game, timed or total, console or full. In this side they got this for 2021 many cool stuff like FFVIIR Intergrade, Deathloop, Guilty Gear Strive, Kena, Little Devil Inside etc.

Roadmap for PS Studios = 13 games from today up to 2024-2025

Roadmap for XGS = 24 games from today up to 2024-2025

If I recall my maths correctly, 24 > 13, so...
Hermen said PS Studios has OVER 25 games under development. AAA take on average 4-5 years to be developed, so by 2025 they will have released all of them plus some smaller ones that still aren't in production (I'm thinking on PSVR2 games).

It is also generous to consider MS will have all these games ready for 2024-2025 release when we're in late 2021 and some of them still aren't in full production.
 
Last edited:

Wulfer

Member


You were saying? :messenger_sunglasses:

Back on topic, Microsoft and its studios already have memorable characters, being the most memorable Master Chief and Cortana. Sure, they're not Nintendo (with Mario and Pikachu being cultural icons), but then again, who can compare themselves with a behemoth like that? I mean... Mario and Pikachu are at the same level as Mikey Mouse or Bugs Bunny ffs
Dr.Aspirino you left off Crossfire X for Xbox it's exclusive too. MS needs one more Adventure 3rd person game and then they can focus on a family/kart games. Looking at that list if anything Sony lacking in Racing/Flight, RPG's and FPSers. Sony will buy Exclusives from SquareEnix for sure to fill in some gaps but, they have a lot of work to do to fill in the gaps. I think Sony's made a critical mistake that Microsoft made with the 360. Depending on 3rd parties to always be there to fill in your gaps, in this case just look at how many holes Bethesda has made going exclusive to PC/Xbox. I would even say that Sony was counting on Bethesda to fill in those gaps.
 
Last edited:

Derktron

Banned
These threads really grind my gear so fucking much and it enrages me to see such stupid antics brought into it. Woosh......gamers or better yet fanboys need to get with the program and just admit that they are fanboys and just say that. Why is it every single damn time Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo do something this stupid website and I'm sure on Twitter the drama queens come out and make such a topic? I just don't understand why is this even allowed. This just brings in the fanboys. Microsoft is fine and so is everyone else. I feel like all you guys ever do is complain and act in the drama. I need to get tf out of these websites. I'm going to delete my account or something because dammit. It never fails, never will fail.

Microsoft buys Bethesda ---- it's the end of the world and Sony is finished claim the Xbox fanboys, the Sony fanboys claim ohh fuck Bethesda. -- Even though they begged Xbox to be aggressive.
Sony gets 2 games and ---- it's the end of the world and Microsoft is going to die and sell its body to Amazon, claim the Sony fanboys. --- Fanboys from Xbox ohh we got such and such we are fine.
Nintendo gets some games and sell consoles like hotcakes and it's the end of the world for both systems or the fact that both think Nintendo is somehow doomed over the fact that such and such games are not coming to Nintendo


You guys need to get with the right program and choose what to complain about.

Iron Man Reaction GIF
 
Last edited:
Its a subjective opinion, not a "false narrative". Also, Metacritic/OpenCritic means literally nothing when the vast majority of those reviewers/sites are from the same inbred group of bigotted fuckwits that make up the modern gaming "journalist" industry. Their words and views mean as much to me as a wadded up used piece of toilet paper after a night at Taco Bell.
Well okay then I just hope you keep that same energy with ALL game reviews for all platforms from all platform holders, because they all tend to get reviewed from the same pool of journalists you dislike.

By that logic, even user reviews would have to be dismissed because groups of gamers have proven they can bog down the legitimacy of the review systems by doing things like negative review-bombing, or leaving scores (good or bad) with literally zero context on why they leave the scores, or not having played the game before reviewing it, etc.

And hey, ultimately your own personal word should be what really matters in deciding if a game is worth your time, I'm just referring to the same MetaCritic/OpenCritic etc. scores many go to when they vouch for the power of 1P exclusives in general especially for certain platforms. If the same people who usually do that are now saying I shouldn't refer to the same things to disprove certain points they bring up with data that goes against those points of theirs, then they should realize they aren't "keeping that same energy".

These threads really grind my gear so fucking much and it enrages me to see such stupid antics brought into it. Woosh......gamers or better yet fanboys need to get with the program and just admit that they are fanboys and just say that. Why is it every single damn time Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo do something this stupid website and I'm sure on Twitter the drama queens come out and make such a topic? I just don't understand why is this even allowed. This just brings in the fanboys. That it is, Microsoft is fine and so is everyone else. I feel like all you guys ever do is complain and act in the drama. I need to get tf out of these websites. I'm going to delete my account or something because dammit. It never fails, never will fail.

Microsoft buys Bethedia ---- it's the end of the world and Sony is finished claim the Xbox fanboys, the Sony fanboys claim ohh fuck Bethesda. -- Even though they begged Xbox to be aggressive.
Sony gets 2 games and ---- it's the end of the world and Microsoft is going to die and sell its body to Amazon, claim the Sony fanboys. --- Fanboys from Xbox ohh we got such and such we are fine.
Nintendo gets some games and sell consoles like hotcakes and it's the end of the world for both systems or the fact that both think Nintendo is somehow doomed over the fact that such and such games are not coming to Nintendo


You guys need to get with the right program and choose what to complain about.

Iron Man Reaction GIF

Look if you're upset at some of the people who have taken the topic and twisted it into something that wasn't intended i can understand, but please don't try framing it as if that was my intention when making the thread. I've been labeled an Xbox fanboy too many times to suddenly get labeled a Sony fanboy because of a thread like this, but maybe that should show that I'm just a fan of games in general and more or less like all the platform holders in one way or another?

This thread wasn't intended to be about acquisitions (which i have no problem with but aren't worth speculating on unless very credible rumors or proof starts to come forth and you'll never find me complaining about them being "anti-consumer" or monopolistic), game quality (people trying to say Xbox 1P last gen was objectively bad across the board when literal review scores disprove that for the majority of them) etc. It's also not a "Microsoft are D00M3D!" type of thread; at the end of the day they'll be fine and they've got some of the best upcoming games for 2021 and 2022 coming to their platform, many of them exclusive.

The whole point of the thread is simple: do Microsoft have enough (or any) IP with a large enough brand power to dominate the cultural mindshare in ways that provide massive boosts to both the Microsoft and Xbox brands, and if they do, are any of those IP strongly associated with Xbox or Microsoft as brands of theirs? People keep bringing up Halo,, but keep ignoring that Master Chief's brand power has diminished over the years due to issues with several Halo games and lack of presence in other big media (film, animation, comics, television etc.). They keep bringing up Minecraft but fail to mention that it is still framed as its own brand and publicly presented that way, so most Minecraft players don't immediately think of it as a "Microsoft" or "Xbox" IP.

People keep bringing up TES, DOOM etc. but fail to mention that Bethesda is still by and large seen as a multiplat 3P publisher and the fact Microsoft are still setting them up that way (and, yes, the fact they continue to release some games, even if they're older games, on other platforms) in some ways continues to and will continue to perpetuate that for a while, so there's still a lot of folks who don't immediately associate Bethesda (and the other Zenimax studios) as a Microsoft or Xbox brand. And the reason I'm even asking that question is because ultimately it's not just the services, the hardware or even the quality of the content alone that shift mindshare among the masses. It's all of those things PLUS having at least a couple of IP with brand power recognition that can shape the cultural zeitgeist, PLUS those same IP being very strongly associated with a given console brand and its platform holder (either primarily or exclusively).

Those last two points are where I see things like Sony associating IP like SpiderMan, Wolverine and growing brand power of titles like GoW, not to mention 3P IP like Final Fantasy, MGS, Street Fighter, COD, Fortnite etc. being heavily viewed as PlayStation brands, being roadblocks to Microsoft if they want to expand their brand presence with Xbox and GamePass, things they obviously want to do. And I'm not even saying they need superhero IP to do this!

And yes, they will very likely get there through gradual growth and iteration of some of these new IP like Starfield, but they need IP which have that type of brand power (arguably more) RIGHT NOW, and I don't think they have that many in terms of which can move tons of cultural mindshare, that are heavily associated as Microsoft and Xbox brands first and foremost. Halo is one of the closest but they have to regain lost brand power. Other games like Forza Horizon are arguably the best quality-wise in their field but they lack the type of story-driven, human character (or human-like character)-driven, lore/worldbuilding narratives that capture the masses at an emotional level, which is what you need to get that strong type of cultural mindshare.

And since whoever can control or gain the most of that cultural mindshare, gains and controls the money, then it's VERY important to know if Microsoft acknowledges this and what they may be doing (or could theoretically do) to address it.
 


You were saying? :messenger_sunglasses:

Back on topic, Microsoft and its studios already have memorable characters, being the most memorable Master Chief and Cortana. Sure, they're not Nintendo (with Mario and Pikachu being cultural icons), but then again, who can compare themselves with a behemoth like that? I mean... Mario and Pikachu are at the same level as Mikey Mouse or Bugs Bunny ffs.

I don't really like doing list wars because they generally say almost nothing, but there is something to be said here. Firstly, a good deal of the games listed for Xbox, we really don't have any idea what they will be like, and in some cases they have studios that have not touched the genre they are in (Fable, though Playground are a proven commodity for quality), or have had checkered quality of releases the past few years (Rare, although SoT has gotten a lot better since launch). A lot of them are also new IP, which is exciting for a good number of gamers, but also means we're dealing with IP that have no preexisting track record or rapport with gamers, so there isn't a lot there in terms of the IP most can cling to for familiarity.

In all honestly this list is probably selling Sony's quantity and even Microsoft's quantity of full 1P releases for the time period short, not to mention not touching on 3P timed exclusives that will be present. However, to touch on the main idea of this thread, if you showed a more casual gamer or non-gamer this list and asked them which one they would be more interested in, based on nothing but name alone, and they would most likely choose the Sony list. Why? Well, mainly because of SpiderMan and Wolverine being present. That's what I mean when I bring up the brand power of certain IP and the impact that has on cultural mindshare, along with that brand association with given platforms or platform holders.
 
Last edited:

DrAspirino

Banned
However, to touch on the main idea of this thread, if you showed a more casual gamer or non-gamer this list and asked them which one they would be more interested in, based on nothing but name alone, and they would most likely choose the Sony list. Why? Well, mainly because of SpiderMan and Wolverine being present. That's what I mean when I bring up the brand power of certain IP and the impact that has on cultural mindshare, along with that brand association with given platforms or platform holders.


For what I see in that list, there isn't a single Sony or Microsoft fictional character on that list, however, you do have a point with SpiderMan and Wolverine, since both of them can (and probably will) bring players to a platform (PlayStation in this case). However, none of those are Sony IPs, since the original owner is Marvel comics. Mario and Pikachu, on the other hand, are Nintendo IPs through and through.

Sega has Sonic as its iconic character (which is on that top 100 as well), and if Sony had played well its cards 20 years ago, Crash Bandicoot would be on-par (however, they made the insanely stupid move of selling the Crash Bandicoot IP to Activision). Microsoft, in that regard, never had a chance in getting into the "iconic character" club.
 

SLB1904

Gold Member


For what I see in that list, there isn't a single Sony or Microsoft fictional character on that list, however, you do have a point with SpiderMan and Wolverine, since both of them can (and probably will) bring players to a platform (PlayStation in this case). However, none of those are Sony IPs, since the original owner is Marvel comics. Mario and Pikachu, on the other hand, are Nintendo IPs through and through.

Sega has Sonic as its iconic character (which is on that top 100 as well), and if Sony had played well its cards 20 years ago, Crash Bandicoot would be on-par (however, they made the insanely stupid move of selling the Crash Bandicoot IP to Activision). Microsoft, in that regard, never had a chance in getting into the "iconic character" club.
Pokemon isn't Nintendo ip. Crash was universal ip. Sony pay spiderman and wolverine rent that means its their ip
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Well okay then I just hope you keep that same energy with ALL game reviews for all platforms from all platform holders, because they all tend to get reviewed from the same pool of journalists you dislike.
I do and have stated such damn near every single time I discuss this topic. I don't give two shits about the company who makes a console or the "problematic" devs behind a game - all I care about is playing good, well written, well designed games. And, this may shock you, every single major console and platform has fantastic games!

By that logic, even user reviews would have to be dismissed because groups of gamers have proven they can bog down the legitimacy of the review systems by doing things like negative review-bombing, or leaving scores (good or bad) with literally zero context on why they leave the scores, or not having played the game before reviewing it, etc.
Hence why I keep telling people to follow youtubers, streamers, and other such folks whom they respect and trust to provide unbiased reviews. That includes communities. I trust the general GAF community far more than some dipshit like Jez Corden or IGN as, outside of the pathetic console warriors who are well known and many of which are in this very thread, actually give a shit about games.

And hey, ultimately your own personal word should be what really matters in deciding if a game is worth your time, I'm just referring to the same MetaCritic/OpenCritic etc. scores many go to when they vouch for the power of 1P exclusives in general especially for certain platforms. If the same people who usually do that are now saying I shouldn't refer to the same things to disprove certain points they bring up with data that goes against those points of theirs, then they should realize they aren't "keeping that same energy".
I would suggest you do the same as me and focus on the games instead of making word soup posts in defense of your personal plastic box preference as you are wont to do. Nobody outside of other console warriors gives a shit about first party exclusives. Sane people only care about the quality of the product.
 
Last edited:

Derktron

Banned
Well okay then I just hope you keep that same energy with ALL game reviews for all platforms from all platform holders, because they all tend to get reviewed from the same pool of journalists you dislike.

By that logic, even user reviews would have to be dismissed because groups of gamers have proven they can bog down the legitimacy of the review systems by doing things like negative review-bombing, or leaving scores (good or bad) with literally zero context on why they leave the scores, or not having played the game before reviewing it, etc.

And hey, ultimately your own personal word should be what really matters in deciding if a game is worth your time, I'm just referring to the same MetaCritic/OpenCritic etc. scores many go to when they vouch for the power of 1P exclusives in general especially for certain platforms. If the same people who usually do that are now saying I shouldn't refer to the same things to disprove certain points they bring up with data that goes against those points of theirs, then they should realize they aren't "keeping that same energy".



Look if you're upset at some of the people who have taken the topic and twisted it into something that wasn't intended i can understand, but please don't try framing it as if that was my intention when making the thread. I've been labeled an Xbox fanboy too many times to suddenly get labeled a Sony fanboy because of a thread like this, but maybe that should show that I'm just a fan of games in general and more or less like all the platform holders in one way or another?

This thread wasn't intended to be about acquisitions (which i have no problem with but aren't worth speculating on unless very credible rumors or proof starts to come forth and you'll never find me complaining about them being "anti-consumer" or monopolistic), game quality (people trying to say Xbox 1P last gen was objectively bad across the board when literal review scores disprove that for the majority of them) etc. It's also not a "Microsoft are D00M3D!" type of thread; at the end of the day they'll be fine and they've got some of the best upcoming games for 2021 and 2022 coming to their platform, many of them exclusive.

The whole point of the thread is simple: do Microsoft have enough (or any) IP with a large enough brand power to dominate the cultural mindshare in ways that provide massive boosts to both the Microsoft and Xbox brands, and if they do, are any of those IP strongly associated with Xbox or Microsoft as brands of theirs? People keep bringing up Halo,, but keep ignoring that Master Chief's brand power has diminished over the years due to issues with several Halo games and lack of presence in other big media (film, animation, comics, television etc.). They keep bringing up Minecraft but fail to mention that it is still framed as its own brand and publicly presented that way, so most Minecraft players don't immediately think of it as a "Microsoft" or "Xbox" IP.

People keep bringing up TES, DOOM etc. but fail to mention that Bethesda is still by and large seen as a multiplat 3P publisher and the fact Microsoft are still setting them up that way (and, yes, the fact they continue to release some games, even if they're older games, on other platforms) in some ways continues to and will continue to perpetuate that for a while, so there's still a lot of folks who don't immediately associate Bethesda (and the other Zenimax studios) as a Microsoft or Xbox brand. And the reason I'm even asking that question is because ultimately it's not just the services, the hardware or even the quality of the content alone that shift mindshare among the masses. It's all of those things PLUS having at least a couple of IP with brand power recognition that can shape the cultural zeitgeist, PLUS those same IP being very strongly associated with a given console brand and its platform holder (either primarily or exclusively).

Those last two points are where I see things like Sony associating IP like SpiderMan, Wolverine and growing brand power of titles like GoW, not to mention 3P IP like Final Fantasy, MGS, Street Fighter, COD, Fortnite etc. being heavily viewed as PlayStation brands, being roadblocks to Microsoft if they want to expand their brand presence with Xbox and GamePass, things they obviously want to do. And I'm not even saying they need superhero IP to do this!

And yes, they will very likely get there through gradual growth and iteration of some of these new IP like Starfield, but they need IP which have that type of brand power (arguably more) RIGHT NOW, and I don't think they have that many in terms of which can move tons of cultural mindshare, that are heavily associated as Microsoft and Xbox brands first and foremost. Halo is one of the closest but they have to regain lost brand power. Other games like Forza Horizon are arguably the best quality-wise in their field but they lack the type of story-driven, human character (or human-like character)-driven, lore/worldbuilding narratives that capture the masses at an emotional level, which is what you need to get that strong type of cultural mindshare.

And since whoever can control or gain the most of that cultural mindshare, gains and controls the money, then it's VERY important to know if Microsoft acknowledges this and what they may be doing (or could theoretically do) to address it.
There you go, there is my answer, and damn right I will get upset. It's always the same shit as always everyone gets dramatic....Also ignored don't care about your 6 to 8 paragraph of the fanboyism.
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
No, part of the reason why sony ip is more popular is because the PS4 installbase is over double the xbox ones. And now Microsoft have overall stronger Ip, if you just going by the numbers (views,sales etc).
Microsoft is already starting to show a competitive line up against sony, they have halo + forza horizon 5 this year and contraband,redfall,stalker 2(3month timed) starfield and likely forza and some other games next year. So the narrative that Microsofts first party line up is inferior is now false.
 

DrAspirino

Banned
Pokemon isn't Nintendo ip. Crash was universal ip. Sony pay spiderman and wolverine rent that means its their ip
Seems you're wrong.

Pokemon IS a Nintendo IP, and paying rent isn't even close to own an IP. I pay rent for the place that I live, however, that isn't even close to OWNING said place.

If I pay Marvel the rights to publish a spanish version of Spiderman comics here in Chile, that doesn't mean AT ALL that I own that IP. It just means that I have the permission to use it, but that's it.

And yes, Crash was a Universal Interactive IP, it was also a SIE IP, since the original trilogy was designed from scratch as a joint venture between Universal Interactive, SIE, and Naughty Dog. Universal got greedy, and SIE didn't care enough about the IP, and the rest is history.
 

Kumomeme

Member
it is not about the game is single player, multiplayer, story driven or not


whats important here what ms can learn and lacking from sony and nintendo is, they need to sell their game's character as 'face' of their brand.

talk about nintendo people immediately know about mario, pikachu, samus, link etc while sony there is aloy, nathan drake, kratos, jin sakai etc. this not include popular already existing character that now associated with their brand such as spiderman and now they get wolverine into that list. during ps3 era they even get solid snake and during ps2 era they even had those characters from final fantasy(which is now they even get FFXVI despite it is timed exclusives).

for xbox so far they got Halo. when people mention xbox people imaging of that green helmet suit. but thats it. they need more. sure they now has bethesda(which is we aware what kind of game they did).for example any character from bethesda that they can bring to that spotlight? they need to bring out these 'icon' as mascot. they has tons of studio, atleast there is a 'face' that gonna represent their legacy.


at longer term all this also gonna end up as pop culture that gonna affect people's mindshare and overall perception about their brand.
 
Last edited:

ZywyPL

Gold Member

You talk about delivering, but where's GT7? Where's GoW:R? Where's HFW? They where suppose to be he already this year, no? Not to mention they were suppose to be next-gen only games. Where's TLoU2 multiplayer, a year has passed since launch and still no sign of it, is this what you call delivering? Where again, the SP alone was delayed more times than any game ever before, they would probably kept delaying it if it wasn't for that massive leak. GoT was also delayed, not by much because just a month, but still. I could go on on on with all previous years, with when Sony promised to launch their games and when they actually launched, but I think/hope you get the idea. If anything, Sony is the one who sells promises, only to delay their games by months if not years, multiple times even, and announcing the delays very close to the promised release date. What I've learned from past generation is that if Sony announces a release date with nothing but just the year alone, the game will 100% miss the mark.
 

Lupin25

Member
You talk about delivering, but where's GT7? Where's GoW:R? Where's HFW? They where suppose to be he already this year, no? Not to mention they were suppose to be next-gen only games. Where's TLoU2 multiplayer, a year has passed since launch and still no sign of it, is this what you call delivering? Where again, the SP alone was delayed more times than any game ever before, they would probably kept delaying it if it wasn't for that massive leak. GoT was also delayed, not by much because just a month, but still. I could go on on on with all previous years, with when Sony promised to launch their games and when they actually launched, but I think/hope you get the idea. If anything, Sony is the one who sells promises, only to delay their games by months if not years, multiple times even, and announcing the delays very close to the promised release date. What I've learned from past generation is that if Sony announces a release date with nothing but just the year alone, the game will 100% miss the mark.

COVID-19 made huge waves across the entire industry last year though, you can’t fault any publisher for the loss in development time over the past year. Those games were slated for 2021, but many countries were in lockdown.

2020-2021 PS Published Games
The Last of Us, Pt. II
Ghost of Tsushima (+ The Director’s Cut)
Spider-Man: Miles Morales
Ratchet & Clank: A Rift Apart
Demon’s Souls (Remake)
Returnal
Astro’s Playroom
Sackboy: A New Adventure
Dreams
Nioh II & The Nioh Collection
MLB: The Show ‘20
MLB: The Show ‘21
Ironman VR
Predator: Hunting Grounds
Death Stranding: Director’s Cut
Destruction: All-Stars

That’s great output for just 2 years. This is the first time in awhile I’ve seen someone debate Sony’s “output”.
 
Last edited:

ZywyPL

Gold Member
That’s great output for just 2 years. This is the first time in awhile I’ve seen someone debate Sony’s “output”.

Not really, only TLoU2, GoT, MM and R&C are meaningful games released during those 2 years, the rest if just a filler or games that went unnoticed. Seriously, the moment you have to add Astro, Sackboy, DC editions and Destruction AllStars to the list already tells it wasn't that good. But like I said, Sony has been missing the mark way before Covid even existed, either by weeks, months or years. Ffor example GT:S was suppose to launch in November 2016 GT:S but ended up launching a whole year later (with the end result being the lest content-packed GT ever, by far, so so much for "delivering").
 

Zannrebel

Member
Spiderman 2 and wolverine are PS5 only. Naughty Dog's new iP is PS5 only, Cory Barlogs new game is PS5 only. Returnal is PS5 only, Ratchet is PS5 only. Demons souls is PS5 only.

The sad thing is Spiderman 2 will be out before any of Microsoft's first party. Only studio I know works pretty fast is Coalition and Obsidian. I can see avowed coming out in 2023.
Red fall, Forza Motorsport, Star Field, and Avowed will release before spiderman 2
 

Zannrebel

Member
Gears tactics, wasteland 3, Aged of empire 2Re, The medium, Flight Sim (Xbox), pyconauts 2, the Acent, Deathloop thats off the top of my head on the last 12 months.
 

rapid32.5

Member
MS has gotten many great studios now, but their marketing teams can't hype games like in old days. One example, with Cliffy B, is how Gears was marketed properly.
Look how Sony hypes Kojima the same way MS hyped Cliffy B back in the day, even if Death Stranding is an average game some say. Sony makes their userbase believe like it is a AAA game.
 
Last edited:


For what I see in that list, there isn't a single Sony or Microsoft fictional character on that list, however, you do have a point with SpiderMan and Wolverine, since both of them can (and probably will) bring players to a platform (PlayStation in this case). However, none of those are Sony IPs, since the original owner is Marvel comics. Mario and Pikachu, on the other hand, are Nintendo IPs through and through.

Sega has Sonic as its iconic character (which is on that top 100 as well), and if Sony had played well its cards 20 years ago, Crash Bandicoot would be on-par (however, they made the insanely stupid move of selling the Crash Bandicoot IP to Activision). Microsoft, in that regard, never had a chance in getting into the "iconic character" club.

Agreed except with the part that Microsoft never had a chance; Master Chief was that character, and in terms of the gaming mainstream, especially for a while. Halo 3 was practically an event upon itself, but also the last time the series outweighed COD and I'd even argue GTA in terms of cultural mindshare.

If Microsoft had kept the series going in other media ventures with animated projects, comics, films, shows etc. it could've been on such a list you linked with other gaming IP like Sonic, Mario, Pikachu etc. But the reality is they didn't do that, and so we are here.

I do and have stated such damn near every single time I discuss this topic. I don't give two shits about the company who makes a console or the "problematic" devs behind a game - all I care about is playing good, well written, well designed games. And, this may shock you, every single major console and platform has fantastic games!

Cool then 👍

Hence why I keep telling people to follow youtubers, streamers, and other such folks whom they respect and trust to provide unbiased reviews. That includes communities. I trust the general GAF community far more than some dipshit like Jez Corden or IGN as, outside of the pathetic console warriors who are well known and many of which are in this very thread, actually give a shit about games.

You're out of your mind if you think there aren't Youtubers, streamers etc. who don't have their own biases. There absolutely are, some are pretty blatant with them, too. Truth is you cannot find a single person who doesn't have a bias, but as long as that is a bias that doesn't work as a hostile negative towards things which fall outside of that bias, then there is no real issue at hand.

I would suggest you do the same as me and focus on the games instead of making word soup posts in defense of your personal plastic box preference as you are wont to do. Nobody outside of other console warriors gives a shit about first party exclusives. Sane people only care about the quality of the product.

Forgive me for seeing the bigger picture, then. See, I care about this industry and the content as a whole, but there's some real-world economics that come into play for platforms and the brands they belong to. If a platform brand isn't particularly doing certain things they maybe could be doing in some areas, and those things can adversely affect the brand, then that's something I'd like to point out because I actually want ALL the platform brands to fire on all cylinders, as that means more platform holders providing more content for gamers.

I'm sorry if you can't see that for the truth it is, but it is what it is. Trying to pretend first-party content doesn't help establish brand image or drive the industry forward in terms of creativity and tech is foolish. And those two things, simply as two of many examples, have direct implications on the quality of the product (btw "quality of the product" is never something I was making a discussion of ITT in the first place).

No, part of the reason why sony ip is more popular is because the PS4 installbase is over double the xbox ones. And now Microsoft have overall stronger Ip, if you just going by the numbers (views,sales etc).
Microsoft is already starting to show a competitive line up against sony, they have halo + forza horizon 5 this year and contraband,redfall,stalker 2(3month timed) starfield and likely forza and some other games next year. So the narrative that Microsofts first party line up is inferior is now false.

But that's the thing: I've never said their 1P lineup is inferior, and people who have tried going with that idea in the thread missed the point of what the thread was truly about. I've been purely speaking on terms of brand power and cultural mindshare (gaming and mainstream), which are things only partially influenced by game quality.

They're mostly influenced by IP legacy, frequency of content featuring that IP, marketing budget/power for the IP and its products, and specific artistic elements like main characters/stories/world design/lore players can attach themselves to emotionally (which is the only part of that whole equation which can even slightly be made into an argument on quality, though it's a weak link at most).

Every single MS game you just listed is either high-quality or has the potential to be, but that doesn't say too much in terms of their brand power and footprint on the cultural mindshare to dominate the zeitgeist of gaming (nor do they say too much on if those IP are strongly associated by the masses as brands related to Microsoft and Xbox exclusively or predominantly, tho in some cases like Forza that is absolutely the case).

it is not about the game is single player, multiplayer, story driven or not


whats important here what ms can learn and lacking from sony and nintendo is, they need to sell their game's character as 'face' of their brand.

talk about nintendo people immediately know about mario, pikachu, samus, link etc while sony there is aloy, nathan drake, kratos, jin sakai etc. this not include popular already existing character that now associated with their brand such as spiderman and now they get wolverine into that list. during ps3 era they even get solid snake and during ps2 era they even had those characters from final fantasy(which is now they even get FFXVI despite it is timed exclusives).

for xbox so far they got Halo. when people mention xbox people imaging of that green helmet suit. but thats it. they need more. sure they now has bethesda(which is we aware what kind of game they did).for example any character from bethesda that they can bring to that spotlight? they need to bring out these 'icon' as mascot. they has tons of studio, atleast there is a 'face' that gonna represent their legacy.


at longer term all this also gonna end up as pop culture that gonna affect people's mindshare and overall perception about their brand.

Thank you, this is basically in line with what was being mentioned in the OP. Which I think does go to show that the power of the mascot is still very important in the industry, it just shifted away from being exclusively on kid-friendly plumbers or hedgehogs (or anthropomorphic cartoon kid-friendly characters) like it was in the early '90s.

This was always a discussion on what IP characters MS have, that are strongly associated with their brand (MS/Xbox), that can be said to have enough brand power to have a massive footprint in the greater cultural mindshare among gamers and non-gamers alike. On a technical level Microsoft own some IP that definitely have tons of brand power, such as Minecraft, but they aren't really associated with Microsoft or Xbox strongly.

Due to that the closest in that regard is Master Chief whose brand power has diminished some over the years due to lack of consistent quality in various Halo games plus not having any other significant media presence to retain active cultural relevance in the meanwhile (i.e the way Sonic does with the comics, animated series, films etc. even if the Sonic games have been scattershot in quality for years now).

That's why Microsoft, IMO, has to do things like more strongly associating the Bethesda/Zenimax IP with their own brand (and the longer they continue to persist with MP releases on other systems, especially for bigger games, the longer that associative link will take to form among the masses), and while focusing on building up new IP, simultaneously license out an IP or two with very big cultural mindshare footprints already among gamers and non-gamers, such as anything approaching the level of SpiderMan or the X-Men. But that doesn't even have to mean superhero games (that's why I put up a picture of Pulp Fiction in the OP for example).

Sadly, it seems some other folks are trying to reframe this as a way of "console warring", when in reality I just want to see the platform holders (ALL of the platform holders) compete to their full capacity and potential. If the inverse of this situation were formed I absolutely would have written this thread about Sony instead, but that isn't the reality the market exists in.

MS has gotten many great studios now, but their marketing teams can't hype games like in old days. One example, with Cliffy B, is how Gears was marketed properly.
Look how Sony hypes Kojima the same way MS hyped Cliffy B back in the day, even if Death Stranding is an average game some say. Sony makes their userbase believe like it is a AAA game.

Yeah this is an issue that Microsoft needs to address as well; they have flashes of great marketing from time to time but that's more in relation to the brand than it is to specific games. Barely anyone knew about Hivebusters coming (why not do an ad with Dave Bautista in there?). No cool advertising for Flight Sim or Psychonauts 2, either. Same goes for games like The Ascent or 12 Minutes.

Let alone the fact that not all of the games that should get deeper dives leading up to release, really get them in a format that's appropriate for them. When it comes to game specific advertising and wider market messaging for said games, Sony kind of curbstomps Microsoft and that's an area Microsoft could study up to improve upon.
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
Agreed except with the part that Microsoft never had a chance; Master Chief was that character, and in terms of the gaming mainstream, especially for a while. Halo 3 was practically an event upon itself, but also the last time the series outweighed COD and I'd even argue GTA in terms of cultural mindshare.

If Microsoft had kept the series going in other media ventures with animated projects, comics, films, shows etc. it could've been on such a list you linked with other gaming IP like Sonic, Mario, Pikachu etc. But the reality is they didn't do that, and so we are here.



Cool then 👍



You're out of your mind if you think there aren't Youtubers, streamers etc. who don't have their own biases. There absolutely are, some are pretty blatant with them, too. Truth is you cannot find a single person who doesn't have a bias, but as long as that is a bias that doesn't work as a hostile negative towards things which fall outside of that bias, then there is no real issue at hand.



Forgive me for seeing the bigger picture, then. See, I care about this industry and the content as a whole, but there's some real-world economics that come into play for platforms and the brands they belong to. If a platform brand isn't particularly doing certain things they maybe could be doing in some areas, and those things can adversely affect the brand, then that's something I'd like to point out because I actually want ALL the platform brands to fire on all cylinders, as that means more platform holders providing more content for gamers.

I'm sorry if you can't see that for the truth it is, but it is what it is. Trying to pretend first-party content doesn't help establish brand image or drive the industry forward in terms of creativity and tech is foolish. And those two things, simply as two of many examples, have direct implications on the quality of the product (btw "quality of the product" is never something I was making a discussion of ITT in the first place).



But that's the thing: I've never said their 1P lineup is inferior, and people who have tried going with that idea in the thread missed the point of what the thread was truly about. I've been purely speaking on terms of brand power and cultural mindshare (gaming and mainstream), which are things only partially influenced by game quality.

They're mostly influenced by IP legacy, frequency of content featuring that IP, marketing budget/power for the IP and its products, and specific artistic elements like main characters/stories/world design/lore players can attach themselves to emotionally (which is the only part of that whole equation which can even slightly be made into an argument on quality, though it's a weak link at most).

Every single MS game you just listed is either high-quality or has the potential to be, but that doesn't say too much in terms of their brand power and footprint on the cultural mindshare to dominate the zeitgeist of gaming (nor do they say too much on if those IP are strongly associated by the masses as brands related to Microsoft and Xbox exclusively or predominantly, tho in some cases like Forza that is absolutely the case).



Thank you, this is basically in line with what was being mentioned in the OP. Which I think does go to show that the power of the mascot is still very important in the industry, it just shifted away from being exclusively on kid-friendly plumbers or hedgehogs (or anthropomorphic cartoon kid-friendly characters) like it was in the early '90s.

This was always a discussion on what IP characters MS have, that are strongly associated with their brand (MS/Xbox), that can be said to have enough brand power to have a massive footprint in the greater cultural mindshare among gamers and non-gamers alike. On a technical level Microsoft own some IP that definitely have tons of brand power, such as Minecraft, but they aren't really associated with Microsoft or Xbox strongly.

Due to that the closest in that regard is Master Chief whose brand power has diminished some over the years due to lack of consistent quality in various Halo games plus not having any other significant media presence to retain active cultural relevance in the meanwhile (i.e the way Sonic does with the comics, animated series, films etc. even if the Sonic games have been scattershot in quality for years now).

That's why Microsoft, IMO, has to do things like more strongly associating the Bethesda/Zenimax IP with their own brand (and the longer they continue to persist with MP releases on other systems, especially for bigger games, the longer that associative link will take to form among the masses), and while focusing on building up new IP, simultaneously license out an IP or two with very big cultural mindshare footprints already among gamers and non-gamers, such as anything approaching the level of SpiderMan or the X-Men. But that doesn't even have to mean superhero games (that's why I put up a picture of Pulp Fiction in the OP for example).

Sadly, it seems some other folks are trying to reframe this as a way of "console warring", when in reality I just want to see the platform holders (ALL of the platform holders) compete to their full capacity and potential. If the inverse of this situation were formed I absolutely would have written this thread about Sony instead, but that isn't the reality the market exists in.



Yeah this is an issue that Microsoft needs to address as well; they have flashes of great marketing from time to time but that's more in relation to the brand than it is to specific games. Barely anyone knew about Hivebusters coming (why not do an ad with Dave Bautista in there?). No cool advertising for Flight Sim or Psychonauts 2, either. Same goes for games like The Ascent or 12 Minutes.

Let alone the fact that not all of the games that should get deeper dives leading up to release, really get them in a format that's appropriate for them. When it comes to game specific advertising and wider market messaging for said games, Sony kind of curbstomps Microsoft and that's an area Microsoft could study up to improve upon.
Microsoft first party has more brand power then sonys. They have 23 main studios with multiple teams in some of them. Sony has 18 studios now I think, but 3 or 4 are support studios and some are VR studios.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Agreed except with the part that Microsoft never had a chance; Master Chief was that character, and in terms of the gaming mainstream, especially for a while. Halo 3 was practically an event upon itself, but also the last time the series outweighed COD and I'd even argue GTA in terms of cultural mindshare.

If Microsoft had kept the series going in other media ventures with animated projects, comics, films, shows etc. it could've been on such a list you linked with other gaming IP like Sonic, Mario, Pikachu etc. But the reality is they didn't do that, and so we are here.



Cool then 👍



You're out of your mind if you think there aren't Youtubers, streamers etc. who don't have their own biases. There absolutely are, some are pretty blatant with them, too. Truth is you cannot find a single person who doesn't have a bias, but as long as that is a bias that doesn't work as a hostile negative towards things which fall outside of that bias, then there is no real issue at hand.



Forgive me for seeing the bigger picture, then. See, I care about this industry and the content as a whole, but there's some real-world economics that come into play for platforms and the brands they belong to. If a platform brand isn't particularly doing certain things they maybe could be doing in some areas, and those things can adversely affect the brand, then that's something I'd like to point out because I actually want ALL the platform brands to fire on all cylinders, as that means more platform holders providing more content for gamers.

I'm sorry if you can't see that for the truth it is, but it is what it is. Trying to pretend first-party content doesn't help establish brand image or drive the industry forward in terms of creativity and tech is foolish. And those two things, simply as two of many examples, have direct implications on the quality of the product (btw "quality of the product" is never something I was making a discussion of ITT in the first place).



But that's the thing: I've never said their 1P lineup is inferior, and people who have tried going with that idea in the thread missed the point of what the thread was truly about. I've been purely speaking on terms of brand power and cultural mindshare (gaming and mainstream), which are things only partially influenced by game quality.

They're mostly influenced by IP legacy, frequency of content featuring that IP, marketing budget/power for the IP and its products, and specific artistic elements like main characters/stories/world design/lore players can attach themselves to emotionally (which is the only part of that whole equation which can even slightly be made into an argument on quality, though it's a weak link at most).

Every single MS game you just listed is either high-quality or has the potential to be, but that doesn't say too much in terms of their brand power and footprint on the cultural mindshare to dominate the zeitgeist of gaming (nor do they say too much on if those IP are strongly associated by the masses as brands related to Microsoft and Xbox exclusively or predominantly, tho in some cases like Forza that is absolutely the case).



Thank you, this is basically in line with what was being mentioned in the OP. Which I think does go to show that the power of the mascot is still very important in the industry, it just shifted away from being exclusively on kid-friendly plumbers or hedgehogs (or anthropomorphic cartoon kid-friendly characters) like it was in the early '90s.

This was always a discussion on what IP characters MS have, that are strongly associated with their brand (MS/Xbox), that can be said to have enough brand power to have a massive footprint in the greater cultural mindshare among gamers and non-gamers alike. On a technical level Microsoft own some IP that definitely have tons of brand power, such as Minecraft, but they aren't really associated with Microsoft or Xbox strongly.

Due to that the closest in that regard is Master Chief whose brand power has diminished some over the years due to lack of consistent quality in various Halo games plus not having any other significant media presence to retain active cultural relevance in the meanwhile (i.e the way Sonic does with the comics, animated series, films etc. even if the Sonic games have been scattershot in quality for years now).

That's why Microsoft, IMO, has to do things like more strongly associating the Bethesda/Zenimax IP with their own brand (and the longer they continue to persist with MP releases on other systems, especially for bigger games, the longer that associative link will take to form among the masses), and while focusing on building up new IP, simultaneously license out an IP or two with very big cultural mindshare footprints already among gamers and non-gamers, such as anything approaching the level of SpiderMan or the X-Men. But that doesn't even have to mean superhero games (that's why I put up a picture of Pulp Fiction in the OP for example).

Sadly, it seems some other folks are trying to reframe this as a way of "console warring", when in reality I just want to see the platform holders (ALL of the platform holders) compete to their full capacity and potential. If the inverse of this situation were formed I absolutely would have written this thread about Sony instead, but that isn't the reality the market exists in.



Yeah this is an issue that Microsoft needs to address as well; they have flashes of great marketing from time to time but that's more in relation to the brand than it is to specific games. Barely anyone knew about Hivebusters coming (why not do an ad with Dave Bautista in there?). No cool advertising for Flight Sim or Psychonauts 2, either. Same goes for games like The Ascent or 12 Minutes.

Let alone the fact that not all of the games that should get deeper dives leading up to release, really get them in a format that's appropriate for them. When it comes to game specific advertising and wider market messaging for said games, Sony kind of curbstomps Microsoft and that's an area Microsoft could study up to improve upon.

Thanks for proving my point.
 
Microsoft first party has more brand power then sonys. They have 23 main studios with multiple teams in some of them. Sony has 18 studios now I think, but 3 or 4 are support studios and some are VR studios.

This might be possible if we're talking IP which Microsoft technically owns now, and as a collective, but how many of the bigger ones are intrinsically identified as Microsoft and Xbox-branded IP? Because Minecraft at large isn't, and currently neither are DOOM, Elder Scrolls, Wolfenstein or virtually any of the Bethesda/Zenimax games tbh.

The Bethesda/Zenimax one can be particularly weird because I also know that those games are very strongly associated with PC gaming too, so you would think that'd mean Windows (which is Microsoft), but PC gamers vastly view Steam (which is Valve) as their PC gaming platform so even in terms of PC gaming the Bethesda/Zenimax brand is probably more viewed as associated to Valve/Steam if we're talking platform holders.

In order for Microsoft to spearhead and push those brands and IP as properties people at large associate either exclusively or predominantly with Xbox (and by association, GamePass), they'll have to be more explicit about tying the brands together in marketing, and scale back proliferation of those brands (their content) on platforms and ecosystem outside of Xbox and GamePass, and be rather unwavering about it.

To give an example of other instances where Microsoft failed to retain wider-market brand association with relatively strong IP, they let go of both Cuphead and the Ori games, instead of keeping those IP within the Xbox (which would include Xbox and PC, and eventually GamePass) ecosystem. Those were missed opportunities, even if they are not massive AAA IP.


TBH I would like a new Blinx. Nice concept for its time and the 2nd game was an improvement. Also pretty family-friendly, always a good thing for broadening an ecosystem.

Thanks for proving my point.

So applying critical thinking and looking at potential business strategies a company can employ to strengthen their brand is fanboying? You're being delusional.

You realize actual fanboying/console-warring also involves bashing other platforms, right? How is that even possible if the platform I'm "bashing" (real world talk: providing some constructive criticism on) is the platform you seem to think I'm fanboying over?
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
This might be possible if we're talking IP which Microsoft technically owns now, and as a collective, but how many of the bigger ones are intrinsically identified as Microsoft and Xbox-branded IP? Because Minecraft at large isn't, and currently neither are DOOM, Elder Scrolls, Wolfenstein or virtually any of the Bethesda/Zenimax games tbh.

The Bethesda/Zenimax one can be particularly weird because I also know that those games are very strongly associated with PC gaming too, so you would think that'd mean Windows (which is Microsoft), but PC gamers vastly view Steam (which is Valve) as their PC gaming platform so even in terms of PC gaming the Bethesda/Zenimax brand is probably more viewed as associated to Valve/Steam if we're talking platform holders.

In order for Microsoft to spearhead and push those brands and IP as properties people at large associate either exclusively or predominantly with Xbox (and by association, GamePass), they'll have to be more explicit about tying the brands together in marketing, and scale back proliferation of those brands (their content) on platforms and ecosystem outside of Xbox and GamePass, and be rather unwavering about it.

To give an example of other instances where Microsoft failed to retain wider-market brand association with relatively strong IP, they let go of both Cuphead and the Ori games, instead of keeping those IP within the Xbox (which would include Xbox and PC, and eventually GamePass) ecosystem. Those were missed opportunities, even if they are not massive AAA IP.



TBH I would like a new Blinx. Nice concept for its time and the 2nd game was an improvement. Also pretty family-friendly, always a good thing for broadening an ecosystem.



So applying critical thinking and looking at potential business strategies a company can employ to strengthen their brand is fanboying? You're being delusional.

You realize actual fanboying/console-warring also involves bashing other platforms, right? How is that even possible if the platform I'm "bashing" (real world talk: providing some constructive criticism on) is the platform you seem to think I'm fanboying over?

First of all lets get it clear that the "xbox" platform can be acessed via,PC, cloud and console.


And you have added some personal criteria that zenimax games are not Microsoft Ip.....
This rule is your fiction.
I mean how does it work? Is Spiderman a sony Ip? What about returnal? What about uncharted? Naughty dog were aquired by sony too. What is this fictional time requirement which determine ip ownership?

Let me answer that question, none.
As soon as a company buys an ip, its there ip.the Minecraft situation is unique because there were millions of playstation customers playing that game, so ms decided to keep it on there.

Microsofts first party has more brand power, when you look at the numbers and market penetration.
Its really down to Microsoft having more devs, it would be the same if sony had 60% more main studios.
 
Last edited:

Maxwell Jacob Friedman

leads to fear. Fear leads to xbox.
Now let us have a look at what is announced in terms of possible characters to hit the big time.

Starfield -


Hellbade II -


Fable III -


Everwild -


Avowed -


Redfall -


The Ascent (more create your own) -


Bright Memory Infinite -


CrossfireX -


State of Decay 3 -



Xbox has plenty in the bag and more due for short-mid term releases.
We havent seen 6 of those games since announced, no gameplay or anything new
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Now let us have a look at what is announced in terms of possible characters to hit the big time.

Starfield -


Hellbade II -


Fable III -


Everwild -


Avowed -


Redfall -


The Ascent (more create your own) -


Bright Memory Infinite -


CrossfireX -


State of Decay 3 -



Xbox has plenty in the bag and more due for short-mid term releases.
Most of those were announced before launch, a number of them have no release date or gameplay info, hell one of them was confirmed to have no confirmed gameplay even in early development!

Sony and Nintendo were just as bad with this. CGI Trailers don't mean fucking shit until we get some quality gameplay and good demo breakdowns of what we will be doing. Using them as "Hey, we have games coming!" means nothing as we literally know *nothing* about most of them including their release dates. Who knows, some of them may even be delayed 3-4 years for all we know!

Promises of games do not make a good console. Delivering actual quality titles does.
 
Last edited:

Thirty7ven

Sony make cringe trainers.
Xbox doesn’t have the characters, the games, the brand or the allure. Dems the breaks and whoever wants to act like a bitch about it be my guest.

That said, that was yesterday and the future looks promising. They need to deliver hit after hit, that’s all.
 
Top Bottom