I'm sorry is this supposed to be your "counter argument"? If we are going to to dismiss people's posts based on their post history , then the post that OP quoted to start this thread by drek should be subject of the same dismissal based on his post history of shitting on MS and propping up Sony.
I wish people on both sides of these arguments here would actually address the points at hand and stop with the personal attacks and red herrings. As with all things, reality is always more complicated than we might think or want it to be. MS is neither the devil incarnate to gaming, nor are they the best thing to ever happen to gaming. These companies are made of hundreds or even thousands of people...each with their own idea of where the company should be going. And with as many management changes these companies go through, it's no wonder it can be difficult to really "figure them out" and why it seems their "direction" changes so often.
The OP has some valid points that are worthy of discussion, but it is misleading in some ways. For one, it seems to ignore some good examples of "less-traditional" games that have found their ways to Xbox (or games that are often claimed to not exist on Xbox systems). Some recent ones include Sunset Overdrive (gimme that Dreamcast vibe now!), KI, Scalebound, Project Spark, Ori, Below, and even crackdown to an extent. And there have been many from the past like Viva Pinata (!), Kameo, and the many original games from the early 360/OG Xbox years (many of which hopefully make a return). We know MS is capable of releasing these types of games, and it does seem like they're still being made (you can argue about the output of these types of games, but it is happening). But I think the question should be why there has been less focus attached to these types of games than there used to be back in the OG Xbox days. And that is worth discussing.
One point that addresses this is the reality of making games today. A lot of these games from the past that were less-traditional didn't sell well (unfortunately, damnit!!), and sequels did. It's not just a MS problem since you see this industry wide. Company makes two games: less-traditional game releases to great reviews, but manages to barely sell a million copies; sequel of popular franchise releases to ho-hum reviews but sells 5 millions copies. What option do you think most publishers will go after next?
This problem does seem a bit amplified at MS because they have less studios...and Rare is a great example of this. I do wonder what most people would have had them do from a business perspective. They were making a lot of non-traditional games in the early 360 years (that I bought and thought were great games)...but they weren't selling. They then get a "hit" in kinect sports and I see why the direction of the company changed. I personally wasn't happy with this change, but it made perfect sense from a business perspective for why they'd go after that "big seller". Too bad for them that the motion gaming craze crashed before they could cash in again...but can you blame them for going in this direction? Even when they were making games that they "should" be making, they weren't selling a whole lot.
Gaming is still a business at the end of the day. And that drives these decisions. I don't like it, but this is sadly the reality of AAA development today. Publishers pour millions of dollars into games and want (and even expect) millions of sales and dollars back. But, thankfully, small-scale development/indie/low cost development is gaining more and more attention and seems to be bringing back that creative touch that's been missing for years. And I think it can really change the way these companies (MS especially) approach franchises that aren't huge sellers.
This type of development could even address another point that is worth discussing: how MS is less willing to take risks on less-traditional games (especially compared to Sony and Nintendo). MS has, at times, seemed to take risks on games (definitely in the OG Xbox days), but Sony and Nintendo have continually seemed more willing to take a chance on games that probably won't sell millions of copies. I have for a while wished MS would be more willing to take chances on games that might not sell as much as they want. And hopefully KI and Phantom Dust are the start of a new trend that dips into the many great IPs that MS owns. I think they would be foolish to not release more of these older IPs, and the strategy used with KI could be a great way to get these IPs back into gaming in a low cost way. I guess only time will tell us if this is a real trend that they're pursuing (I sure hope it is!).
I hope Sony and Nintendo try out that strategy on some of their long-lost IPs, too.
