So..... why does MS seem like they don't care anymore?

[mojovonio]

It can't be just me that sees the practically night and day examples of aggressively working to make the Xbox brand as successful as it can be. They had a whole slew of exclusives and seemed like they were working to make the 360 better and better with its updates.

This year,

they have 1 unanimously big game in GoW2, against 3 or so from last year.
no more updates
Shane Kim hinted at Mass Effect no longer being exclusive.
Lost Bioshock exclusivity.
Stupid de-listing XBLA bullshit.

Did Peter Moore really have that much control over the division, that as soon as he leaves, it all goes to shit?

[Third]

Let me just say that they did a MUCH better job than the Xbox.

And Ps3 isn't doing much better anyway...

I don't think that a console will gain the same amount of good games and sales such as the Ps1 or Ps2.
Sony really did it with those consoles.

The only thing that's selling is the Wii. ugh. Wii = Ps2 - the good games.

[Mupepe]

Let me just say that they did a MUCH better job than the Xbox.

And Ps3 isn't doing much better anyway...

I don't think that a console will gain the same amount of good games and sales such as the Ps1 or Ps2.
Sony really did it with those consoles.

The only thing that's selling is the Wii. ugh. Wii = Ps2 - the good games.

Pretty much.

I think they realized in a business sense they weren't going to be the next ps2 and thus stopped pouring so much money into it.  Not to mention, they're turning a profit so they see it as "we can coast now".  Sony is in the same position.

[MrAngryFace]

Thats right, they dont want profit and marketshare anymore. Youve uncovered the big secret! Companies no longer want money! They deal in hopes n dreams.

[duckman2000]

At this point, with the object of pushing Sony into submission and subsequently acceptance of MS OS and services not looking realistically attainable, Microsoft can either push hard to become the indisputable HD media hub and gaming system market leader, or it can simply let the thing run its course with minimal acceptable effort and loss, and maybe set its sight on the next hardware generation. The former doesn't seem like it'd be appealing to Microsoft. Unless one was to believe that the company has an honest interest in competing on a standalone level, but I doubt that, as I have hard time believing that MS wants to shoulder the overwhelming brunt of responsibility for pushing the market onward. For all its bells and whistles, the platform is just a conduit, and the attitude towards game software development seems pretty shortsighted.

[MrAngryFace]

A conduit to your heart!

[Mupepe]

At this point, with the object of pushing Sony into submission and subsequently acceptance of MS OS and services not looking realistically attainable, Microsoft can either push hard to become the indisputable HD media hub and gaming system market leader, or it can simply let the thing run its course with minimal acceptable effort and loss, and maybe set its sight on the next hardware generation. The former doesn't seem like it'd be appealing to Microsoft. Unless one was to believe that the company has an honest interest in competing on a standalone level, but I doubt that, as I have hard time believing that MS wants to shoulder the overwhelming brunt of responsibility for pushing the market onward. For all its bells and whistles, the platform is just a conduit, and the attitude towards game software development seems pretty shortsighted.

I dunno, for the most part they seem to want to let developers decide where the market is going and I like that.  It's why developers usually harp on how much they like working on the 360.  The only thing is then MS does really stupid shit like the XBLA royalty shit. 

[MrAngryFace]

The XBLA stuff is what I worry about

[duckman2000]

At this point, with the object of pushing Sony into submission and subsequently acceptance of MS OS and services not looking realistically attainable, Microsoft can either push hard to become the indisputable HD media hub and gaming system market leader, or it can simply let the thing run its course with minimal acceptable effort and loss, and maybe set its sight on the next hardware generation. The former doesn't seem like it'd be appealing to Microsoft. Unless one was to believe that the company has an honest interest in competing on a standalone level, but I doubt that, as I have hard time believing that MS wants to shoulder the overwhelming brunt of responsibility for pushing the market onward. For all its bells and whistles, the platform is just a conduit, and the attitude towards game software development seems pretty shortsighted.

I dunno, for the most part they seem to want to let developers decide where the market is going and I like that.  It's why developers usually harp on how much they like working on the 360.  The only thing is then MS does really stupid shit like the XBLA royalty shit.

I'm not talking about ease of development though, but actual development resources. Microsoft has effectively shed itself of its first party development resources in favor of contracting third party (and multiplatform) studios to develop its first party games. A good approach, for a shortsighted business. Microsoft isn't in the game console business for the long haul. While Sony is actively building its internal network of developers, sharing tech and assets across first party development, Microsoft is basically banking everything on the efforts of a multiplatform game and engine developer. Again, great for the short run, and the company has certainly gotten better results than Sony in this regard, but it really doesn't signal a long term interest in the game console business.

[Mupepe]

The XBLA stuff is what I worry about

Same.  It's such a great concept and could really be great for small (and even large) developers and consumers alike, but they're really handicapping it.

I'm not talking about ease of development though, but actual development resources. Microsoft has effectively shed itself of its first party development resources in favor of contracting third party (and multiplatform) studios to develop its first party games. A good approach, for a shortsighted business. Microsoft isn't in the game console business for the long haul. While Sony is actively building its internal network of developers, sharing tech and assets across first party development, Microsoft is basically banking everything on the efforts of a multiplatform game and engine developer. Again, great for the short run, and the company has certainly gotten better results than Sony in this regard, but it really doesn't signal a long term interest in the game console business.

I think the full effect of their strategy is to be seen.  It's clear that the department is halfway into a big reorganization.  Also, they just recently opened a new studio if I recall correctly and I think they realized it's a lot more effective to keep your mouth shut about the moves you'll be making.  It's done Nintendo very well and I think MS is trying to mimic that strategy.

[Draft]

At this point, with the object of pushing Sony into submission and subsequently acceptance of MS OS and services not looking realistically attainable, Microsoft can either push hard to become the indisputable HD media hub and gaming system market leader, or it can simply let the thing run its course with minimal acceptable effort and loss, and maybe set its sight on the next hardware generation. The former doesn't seem like it'd be appealing to Microsoft. Unless one was to believe that the company has an honest interest in competing on a standalone level, but I doubt that, as I have hard time believing that MS wants to shoulder the overwhelming brunt of responsibility for pushing the market onward. For all its bells and whistles, the platform is just a conduit, and the attitude towards game software development seems pretty shortsighted.

I dunno, for the most part they seem to want to let developers decide where the market is going and I like that.  It's why developers usually harp on how much they like working on the 360.  The only thing is then MS does really stupid shit like the XBLA royalty shit.

I'm not talking about ease of development though, but actual development resources. Microsoft has effectively shed itself of its first party development resources in favor of contracting third party (and multiplatform) studios to develop its first party games. A good approach, for a shortsighted business. Microsoft isn't in the game console business for the long haul. While Sony is actively building its internal network of developers, sharing tech and assets across first party development, Microsoft is basically banking everything on the efforts of a multiplatform game and engine developer. Again, great for the short run, and the company has certainly gotten better results than Sony in this regard, but it really doesn't signal a long term interest in the game console business.

The one feather in Microsoft's cap is that 3rd parties make money on their hardware.

All of Sony's first party studio asset sharing and what not has resulted in what? 10 or so games that have moved 3-400k units a piece, and 2 that passed a million once they got greatest hitsesed and tossed in hardware bundles?

Where as MS has been printing money on the software front by contracting 3rd parties to develop games they publish.

Business model seems to be working for them so far.

[duckman2000]

At this point, with the object of pushing Sony into submission and subsequently acceptance of MS OS and services not looking realistically attainable, Microsoft can either push hard to become the indisputable HD media hub and gaming system market leader, or it can simply let the thing run its course with minimal acceptable effort and loss, and maybe set its sight on the next hardware generation. The former doesn't seem like it'd be appealing to Microsoft. Unless one was to believe that the company has an honest interest in competing on a standalone level, but I doubt that, as I have hard time believing that MS wants to shoulder the overwhelming brunt of responsibility for pushing the market onward. For all its bells and whistles, the platform is just a conduit, and the attitude towards game software development seems pretty shortsighted.

I dunno, for the most part they seem to want to let developers decide where the market is going and I like that.  It's why developers usually harp on how much they like working on the 360.  The only thing is then MS does really stupid shit like the XBLA royalty shit.

I'm not talking about ease of development though, but actual development resources. Microsoft has effectively shed itself of its first party development resources in favor of contracting third party (and multiplatform) studios to develop its first party games. A good approach, for a shortsighted business. Microsoft isn't in the game console business for the long haul. While Sony is actively building its internal network of developers, sharing tech and assets across first party development, Microsoft is basically banking everything on the efforts of a multiplatform game and engine developer. Again, great for the short run, and the company has certainly gotten better results than Sony in this regard, but it really doesn't signal a long term interest in the game console business.

The one feather in Microsoft's cap is that 3rd parties make money on their hardware.

All of Sony's first party studio asset sharing and what not has resulted in what? 10 or so games that have moved 3-400k units a piece, and 2 that passed a million once they got greatest hitsesed and tossed in hardware bundles?

Where as MS has been printing money on the software front by contracting 3rd parties to develop games they publish.

Business model seems to be working for them so far.

As said, it's a great short run strategy. It's certainly not one for the long haul. What happens if something happens to Epic? And then there is the simple reality that technology is going to, or already has, hit a wall due to a lack of developers actually pushing things further. Epic will be there to supply, sure, but the company isn't that big.

I doubt we've seen the full effect of Sony's SCEWW approach yet, although I'll admit that I can't for the life of me understand why Sony isn't more interested in sharing the results with 3rd parties. Instead they are forced to either take on the beast on their own with decidedly mixed results, or rely on licensed technology that wasn't even working properly for the PS3 for the longest time. That is, until Microsoft's great big hope came in and fixed what was broken. There's something comical there.

[Smooth Groove]

Few people care much about Sony's shitty, overrated 1st party games.  The PS1 and PS2 were the most successful consoles of their time because of 3rd party support. 

[AdmiralViscen]

Didn't we just get Fable, Banjo, Infinite Undiscovery release dates last week, and Gears 2 wasn't even confirmed to exist until 2-3 months ago?

I'm still not seeing this argument.

[Smooth Groove]

I don't see the Sony is going to be successful in the long run because their 1st party games are awesome argument. 

[duckman2000]

I don't see the Sony is going to be successful in the long run because their 1st party games are awesome argument. 

Building up internal, wholly owned and totally controlled production resources is rarely a bad idea, unless you're in it for the short run. Of course, it will eventually come down to how its managed, and that has so far seemed pretty miserable. And I thought for sure that it would result in technology sharing with third parties, but as far as I know, that's been pretty slim. :/

Still, honest question here, do any of you actually believe that MS is in this for the long haul, and for the purpose of actually competing in the video game console business? I consider it a conduit, with game playing capabilities in place to serve as an attractive lure. This is not the view I had back in the Xbox days.

[AdmiralViscen]

I don't see the Sony is going to be successful in the long run because their 1st party games are awesome argument. 

Building up internal, wholly owned and totally controlled production resources is rarely a bad idea, unless you're in it for the short run. Of course, it will eventually come down to how its managed, and that has so far seemed pretty miserable. And I thought for sure that it would result in technology sharing with third parties, but as far as I know, that's been pretty slim. :/

Still, honest question here, do any of you actually believe that MS is in this for the long haul, and for the purpose of actually competing in the video game console business? I consider it a conduit, with game playing capabilities in place to serve as an attractive lure. This is not the view I had back in the Xbox days.

I thought it was more of a conduit in the XBox days than it is now.

[Rman]

I don't see the Sony is going to be successful in the long run because their 1st party games are awesome argument. 

I agree, but the GT games were a major exception to that sentiment.

[Positive Touch]

uhh it's not like microsoft needs help in getting it's name out there, ffs.  why wouldn't ms be in this for the long haul?  it's a way to make a shitton of money!  the idea that they just kind of jumped in is laughable considering how much time and money they've put into the xbox brand.  I of course don't know what their strategy is, but saying that they're just in this for some kind of short-term gain simply because they don't have much in the way of 1st party developers makes no sense.  The console is doing well, and they're getting good games on the system, so why invest in something that will cost a lot more but may not give back much?

[Narag]

uhh it's not like microsoft needs help in getting it's name out there, ffs.  why wouldn't ms be in this for the long haul?  it's a way to make a shitton of money!  the idea that they just kind of jumped in is laughable considering how much time and money they've put into the xbox brand.  I of course don't know what their strategy is, but saying that they're just in this for some kind of short-term gain simply because they don't have much in the way of 1st party developers makes no sense.  The console is doing well, and they're getting good games on the system, so why invest in something that will cost a lot more but may not give back much?

I tend to agree with this. Its an attempt to diversify themselves and all the while they're able to crosspromote their family of products through interoperability.

[MrAngryFace]

I think what blows my mind, is this argument being brought against the 360, a system that has consistantly offered games that live on the NPD Top 10. A system that has offered the most variety, quality, online options, and performance of all the consoles.

Yet the PS3 with its lackluster library of failed promises and half-assed online implementation gets to rest on the legacy of a much better system (PS2) and we dont ask the hard questions here. We dont look at the TRUTH that the PS3 was a VEHICLE for the Bluray format.

But hey, Sony Fans, lets wait for our two games a year (MGS4 *cough* FFXIII rite) and pipe dreams. It worked for Nintendo fans!

Oh wait, Haze right? Our 3 games a year then. Cause Haze was really good.

[duckman2000]

Yet the PS3 with its lackluster library of failed promises and half-assed online implementation gets to rest on the legacy of a much better system (PS2) and we dont ask the hard questions here. We dont look at the TRUTH that the PS3 was a VEHICLE for the Bluray format.

I don't think there is even really a question to be asked there. Of course it was a vehicle for BRD, and the company has certainly received plenty of shit, from media and consumers, as well as a loss of sales due to the high price. But it's also the next in a longer line of game consoles, which in itself is a load bearing pillar of Sony's CE business.

The argument of the Xbox platform being little more than a windows<--->home entertainment center conduit has rarely been mentioned, and this in spite of the company steadily cutting down on internal game development resources. And in the instances when people do mention it, it always takes some absurd form, like "is MS exiting the console market?", making it awfully difficult to discuss.

[MrAngryFace]

Microsoft did this with its PC gaming division way back when too. Previous actions indicate that the MS First Party development groups served to support the console until wide 3rd party adoption occured, from that point on the company as a whole needed resources elsewhere. You never saw this with the first Xbox because it was never really accepted. Nowadays the third party devs are more than capable of pushing the X360 in terms of hardware and library on their own because the tools offered do not require hand-holding.

This is a hard issue to discuss because most of it is built upon speculation and conspiracy theories.

[Narag]

Isn't that the general case for a successful console? Once the ball is rolling, its time to look ahead for the next system while 3rd parties support it.   I'm not sure how Sony handled the PS1/PS2 in regards to end of lifecycle first party releases though.

[MrAngryFace]

I think its more the case when you haven't been able to create a batch of good 1st party properties. There's no sense in dumping resources in stuff that probably won't ever pan out when 3rd party groups will gladly do it for you.

At most MS has Halo, and that's pretty much 'over' for a while I think. There's that RTS coming out but thats about it.

[Van Cruncheon]

pretty much what MAF said. also, many of you are very far off from the truth as to what MS' long-term goals are in the console marketplace. 

[Tieno]

I think its more the case when you haven't been able to create a batch of good 1st party properties. There's no sense in dumping resources in stuff that probably won't ever pan out when 3rd party groups will gladly do it for you.

At most MS has Halo, and that's pretty much 'over' for a while I think. There's that RTS coming out but thats about it.

Also the Weta project called Halo chronicles. Plus the new studio MS formed specifically for Halo titles, where Stinkles jumped to. First project being the collaboration with Weta on Halo chronicles). I think there'll be Halo titles on a more consistent/closer time schedule than we've had the past few years.

[duckman2000]

They actually snagged Stinkles? I hope he's not in charge of writing the script for anything. :/

[Draft]

I just think the industry is young enough that you can't point to any one practice and say, "This. This is what you do to be successful." I think you can see that line of thinking has sunk more than one third party or hardware manufacturer.

I mean, just observing how MS has done, I really don't think they NEED a big first party development studio. They've done really well funding 3rd parties and then publishing their games.

As long as the game lands on your system, who cares how it gets developed?

[MrAngryFace]

I also dont get why people get so worked up about Bioshock on PS3, its been ages since that came out. Games dont magically become system sellers a year or more AFTER they come out the first time.

[AdmiralViscen]

That settles that.

[MrAngryFace]

who cares, by then X360 saturation will be at its peak and it wont be a system seller anymore. I think its really Sony fans looking for an edge that care about exclusives anymore.

[Narag]

who cares, by then X360 saturation will be at its peak and it wont be a system seller anymore. I think its really Sony fans looking for an edge that care about exclusives anymore.

Basically.

[duckman2000]

I also dont get why people get so worked up about Bioshock on PS3, its been ages since that came out. Games dont magically become system sellers a year or more AFTER they come out the first time.

The whole concept of the individual system selling title is flawed. It's all about the games library reaching critical mass, the point where it becomes desirable if not irresistible. I believe the 360 hit this point last year, certainly in the Fall. The PS3 has yet to get to that point, although it's about to break that barrier, and Bioshock will help there. Not that I'd advice anyone to buy that game, but it's a much respected title with plenty of exposure, so yeah, it will certainly help a great deal.

And then of course fucking Wii hit that point the moment it was released and buddy in-law saw the woman-pleasing appeal of Wii Sports. God I hate this system, most of all because my own home has witnessed this scenario play out several times over.

[Mupepe]

I'm excited about Bioshock on the PS3 because it means even more people can potentially play an awesome fucking game and it has exclusive content and i'll fucking buy it on day one.

and i'm a fucking xfag

[WrikaWrek]

Because they don't.

They are making minimum effort right now. It's like they are just letting things go with the flow, fuck that.

Do they even care about exclusives anymore?

[MCD]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[muckhole]

Because they don't.

They are making minimum effort right now. It's like they are just letting things go with the flow, fuck that.

Do they even care about exclusives anymore?

I'm starting to get the impression that some folks in this thread are more put off by the lack of any major "WOW!" announcements by MS regarding the 360 in the last little bit. Sony seems to be stacking these together, despite the fact that most of what has been announced is only helping them catch up in terms of features, services and in the case of Bioshock, AAA games. When it's all said and done, I'm still not confident enough in Sony to truly make the strides to fully correct their mistakes this gen.

[AdmiralViscen]

Seriously. It's more a PR issue than a software issue.

Just like this PSN mystique of quality over quantity vs XBLA's 'everything is shit.' That holds up theoretically until you hit Wiki and actually look at the lineups.

[MrAngryFace]

Its just not much of an argument

[cool breeze]

Microsoft is doing things that only the nerds with too much time care about.  The audience that buys most of the games most likely don't give a shit about any of this crap.  Microsoft is wising up and marketing boner games like Halo 3 and Gears 2 because thats whats gonna sell.  Gears 2 will get them more console sales then anything on the PS3 this year.

Wii is still gonna be the best sales wise.  Nintendo is on a nonstop thrill ride and won't be slowed down for a long time.  Just as the hype for the Wii is dying down, they will use all that cash and make some new handheld or console and have that sell boatloads while the cycle continues.  Last year microsoft was thinking "well maybe we can get the casuals also with dumb shit like a shitty movie game with lame ass controllers and golden axe, dawg".  They might try again with their waggle wand, but they are now wising up to think about their core audience.  Sony is actually trying hard to please the nerds, that is why you see so many fans going around, but they don't realize that the nerds are so little in the grand scheme of things.

[Beezy]

Microsoft is doing things that only the nerds with too much time care about.  The audience that buys most of the games most likely don't give a shit about any of this crap.  Microsoft is wising up and marketing boner games like Halo 3 and Gears 2 because thats whats gonna sell.  Gears 2 will get them more console sales then anything on the PS3 this year.

I'm guessing that you meant to say Sony in your first sentence?

[AdmiralViscen]

I'm planning to buy more 360 exclusives this year than last year. Different strokes.

[The Sceneman]

Basically the argument comes down down to the fact that if you don't own a 360 (or a good pc) this console generation, you're a dumbfuck and you shouldn't be taken seriously when talking about games since you don't particularly care.  

qft

If you only have a Wii and/or a PS3 this generation (and dont wish you had a sweet pc or 360.. money is an issue for some), youve fucked up pretty bad imo

I can understand only having a Wii as its a cheaper option and if you dont play many games to begin with, but PS3 only is the most distinguished mentally-challenged gaming 'solution' ever. It seems a lot of people love being raped and eating Sony's shit all the time.

And Im with Smooth on denouncing the whole Sony 1st party software argument. Not one Sony franchise is worth a handful of shit. Shit games, shit company, shit system = PS3

[cool breeze]

I'm guessing that you meant to say Sony in your first sentence?

I meant it in terms of the recent things like removing games and Bioshock console exclusivity (speaking of which, I just tried the demo on my beefy PC and wow, the 360 version is shit in comparison, but what a damn fine game.  I might buy the PC version and PS3 version again).  I even said later on that Sony was the one who catering to nerds while MS is only caring about the demographic they go after (social gamers) and attempting to get on Wii territory (casual/non games).

[Beezy]

Eh, I dunno.

I'm just nowhere nearly as excited for the 360 as I was last year.

And its not just because they had ana amazing lineup last year.

*shrugs* I am. Already got Culdcept Saga and Lost Odyssey, NG2 comes out next week, and Infinite Undiscovery, Tales of Vesperia and Fable 2 later on. Gears of War 2 also, but I've never actually played through the first one so I'm not really hyped for it. Then there's all the 3rd party games (Burnout Paradise, DMC4, SC4, etc).

I think you guys just have way too much time to play games.

[AdmiralViscen]

I'm guessing that you meant to say Sony in your first sentence?

I meant it in terms of the recent things like removing games and Bioshock console exclusivity (speaking of which, I just tried the demo on my beefy PC and wow, the 360 version is shit in comparison, but what a damn fine game.  I might buy the PC version and PS3 version again).  I even said later on that Sony was the one who catering to nerds while MS is only caring about the demographic they go after (social gamers) and attempting to get on Wii territory (casual/non games).

Yea, I'm sure if the 360 version is shit the PS3 version will be roses.

[Narag]

I'm guessing that you meant to say Sony in your first sentence?

I meant it in terms of the recent things like removing games and Bioshock console exclusivity (speaking of which, I just tried the demo on my beefy PC and wow, the 360 version is shit in comparison, but what a damn fine game.  I might buy the PC version and PS3 version again).  I even said later on that Sony was the one who catering to nerds while MS is only caring about the demographic they go after (social gamers) and attempting to get on Wii territory (casual/non games).

Yea, I'm sure if the 360 version is shit the PS3 version will be roses.

Agreed on that. Short of being a total Bioshock zealot, I really don't see why one would want it for the PS3 if they've already ran through it on the PC.

[cool breeze]

Yea, I'm sure if the 360 version is shit the PS3 version will be roses.

PS3 version will most likely still run like shit.  Maybe sightly smoother shit given the extra time and all that, but nothing close to the PC version.  The bonus stuff they are hinting at has me curious.  If it isn't anything substantial, I will just re-buy it on PC (although I was planning this anyway).

[originalz]

M$

Truthfully though, I'm sure there's a method to their madness.  Microsoft is a smart enough corporation to look at the big picture, and despite some what we would call questionable choices, it'll probably work out for them in the end.

Cry On looks so nice...

[trippingmartian]

This occurred to me when they announced that there will be no spring update. It's almost as if they've realized they don't really have to try against the PS3 anymore.

[MCD]

This occurred to me when they announced that there will be no spring update. It's almost as if they've realized they don't really have to try against the PS3 anymore.

the xbox team were pretty tied with the cod4/gta4 updates plus they have been working on the drm fix for a very long time now.

[pilonv1]

No different than last year:

360 - present
PS3 - potential
Wii - LOUL

[siamesedreamer]

they have 1 unanimously big game in GoW2, against 3 or so from last year

Disagree. I would argue Fable 2 and to a lesser extent Too Human are the three big guns this year.

GoW2 = Halo 3
Fable 2 = Mass Effect
Too Human = Bioshock

I also don't believe its worrying they lost Bioshock and Mass Effect exclusivity. Its just the reality of the economics of this generation. And delisting some XBLA games is probably part of their effort to start pushing this XNA Creator's Club deal.

[Brehvolution]

C'mon people. We are all here as gamers. Why does one need to bash another platform's followers choice just because you don't own that platform yet or, for whatever reason, require some bravado about it??? Unlike 5 or 10 years ago, there are DOZENS of developers out there making fun games. Play what you want, buy what you want, and be happy. This console war is more about negativity of choice and that is sad. Sad, I say.

Unite as one fellow gamers!!!! I want to know why I should buy a 360 or a wii, not have to justify why I own a PS3. That is counter-productive as is the consolwarz.

[Cormacaroni]

I agree with jonny. It's definitely a less exciting-looking year than last year. Most of the 3rd party stuff i'm seeing is very meh - sequels, or me-too sandbox games and fpses. MS doesn't need many big exclusives to keep the ball rolling at this point so your 360 will only play the games that 3rd parties make for it. 3rd parties do not appear to be bringing the 'awesome' to the extent they did last year, that's all. No Bioware, no Valve, no Bungie...just a weak-looking year for AAA gaming. 

Still Ninja Gaiden II, Gears 2

[Mupepe]

^^
You forgot Fable 2

[cool breeze]

they have 1 unanimously big game in GoW2, against 3 or so from last year

Disagree. I would argue Fable 2 and to a lesser extent Too Human are the three big guns this year.

GoW2 = Halo 3
Fable 2 = Mass Effect
Too Human = Bioshock

With the exception of Gears 2, it is hard to get overly excited about Too Human and Fable 2 (and Banjo 3).  Epic has a solid record and delivered with Gears 1, but Lionhead, Silicon Knights, and Rare all are kind of shaky.  I am just cautiously optimistic towards these games is all.  It isn't like with Gears 2 or Resistance 2 where I know right now that the games will be awesome because of what the developers are capable of.

or are you just talking about sales?

[Van Cruncheon]

also, you forget that dev cycles are 18-24 months these days

[siamesedreamer]

or are you just talking about sales?

Its really the only thing that matters right?