Microsoft Mission Division Has More Xbox 360 Games To Reveal

By Spencer . January 27, 2010 . 11:07am

image

How did Monster Hunter Freedom Online become an Xbox 360 title?  Three businessmen went into the game and offered one of the monsters a contract.

 

The mission division’s “job” is to bring popular series to the Xbox 360. While the wheeling and dealing Xbox 360 head San Roku Maru (that’s 360) isn’t real, the initiative is. And it appears the mission division has a second title to reveal.

 

image

 

Maybe even more than that. The mission division page has three “coming soon” teaser icons on the bottom menu.

 

image

 

What could these be? Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, Monster Hunter, and Final Fantasy (at least for North America and Europe) are already secured for the Xbox 360.


Read more stories about & & on Siliconera.

Video game stories from other sites on the web. These links leave Siliconera.

  • Kris

    Interesting, this year is going to be fantastic for gaming! I wonder how Sony and Nintendo will try to counter these announcements…

    • MisterNiwa

      Sony set the bar for this year, Microsoft still needs to reach it. :I

      • markx15

        Mass Effect says hey

        • MisterNiwa

          And i say, God Of War III, Gran Turismo 5 and Heavy Rain. :I

          Mass Effect and Alan Wake r the killer games for XB360, even though also available on PC.
          Dont mention Halo: Reach, or else i get fiercy.

          • Aoshi00

            My friend was mad Alan Wake won’t be on PC, at least for now. Alan Wake now looks more like a TPS though.. Still, if he could afford upgrading his computer w/ a $250 video card, I don’t see why he doesn’t just get a 360 alrdy, his attachment to PC games…

        • Aoshi00

          I was late to pre-order and LE was sold out everywhere. Thankfully Buy.com pulled thru. Otherwise I would have to drive quite far to a Best Buy to hunt down a copy.

  • SlashZaku

    I must be the only one who has grown tired of MS going after franchises that made their name on PS. This seems to be their only ‘Go-To’ card and more so, they tout “We’ve stolen another PS franchise”. Just seems childish now but then again, PS has been their entire focus it seems this gen in that regard…

    • neo_firenze

      In some ways this fixation on franchises/developers who may be past their glory days from other consoles has come back to bite MS though. One word: Rare.

      Major 3rd party exclusives are a dying breed, so MS can do whatever they want. 3rd parties are going to find a way to get their big games on all of the systems. A few timed exclusives or system specific bonus features/DLC certainly help a bit, but I don’t think it’s the ideal way to proceed for the future.

      I think Sony has the right idea though, by doing a lot of first/second party games. Close relationships with second party devs like Naughty Dog, Insomniac, and Sucker Punch. High profile first party games like Gran Turismo, Little Big Planet, God of War.

      MS needs to do the same! They have Halo… then the second tier drops off dramatically. A little more internal and 2nd party development would be nice to see.

      One thing MS CAN do is focus on certain niche groups. See, for example, 360 being far and away THE dominant choice for arcade style shooters from Cave and the like. It also has a pretty strong market of anime-styled visual novel type games, from what I can see. Stuff like that where you get some of the hardcore niche groups helps. Sony AND MS are gonna have the huge blockbusters from the Namcos, Segas, and Capcoms of the world. But you can gain a competitive advantage with the smaller genres where the devs don’t really have the resources to do multi-platform.

      • SlashZaku

        This is actually one of my problems with the whole situation. MS is picking up all these timed-exclusives (some which have pissed fans off when they find out that they are timed and a more complete version is released on the PS3) and trying to go after “Insert Franchise” (MTV Multiplayer Blog had an interview with some MS guy who said they had a whiteboard with PS franchises and were crossing them off :|) when I think all that money and effort would be better spent building up their own exclusive catalog through 1st and 2nd party, much like Sony has done.

        Would make everyone a bit more diverse in offerings (I’m not too fond of the “Multiplatform Everything!” approach). Then again, Sony has said they saw such coming and it’s why they built up their first party studios and 2nd party relations with the PS2 era.

        • john411

          I agree. What MS should try to do is steal PS franchise and actually keep them exclusive. None of this timed-exclusive crap.

          • SlashZaku

            Yeah and completely screw over the actual fans :| From a Japanese developer’s point, why put your game exclusively on a console that’s going nowhere in the region and lacks the fans that actually enjoy/helped build up the franchise?

            How would 360 owners feel if all of a sudden, Gears 3 was PC exclusive or out of the blue, a PS3 exclusive and you had to upgrade your PC or buy an entirely new console that has little to nothing else that personally interests you to get the ending to the trilogy? That’s how that crap would feel if MS started pulling this BS on a ‘grander scale’, for a lack of a better term, as if they’re not out of hand already.

        • martindowny

          It’s clear Microsoft is playing it safe this generation, going after key franchises like GTA. If you look at their track record it is working for them when you compare what they did last generation. Sony did the same damn thing anyways with the PS2 so of course Microsoft went after that same model since the PS2 was the most successful platform ever. Now look at software sales on the PS3 exclusives compared to games like Halo and Gears of War. M.A.G. will bomb, Heavy Rain has a good chance of bombing and so on. How long will Sony keep making new IP’s that have moderate success? They did well with Uncharted but games like Lair and Untold Legends failed to impress.

          What I will say though is Sony is in better shape for the future. Microsoft has far less IP’s of their own and given the mistakes Sony has done this generation you know they won’t make the same ones next generation. So Microsoft will have two things going for them, try to come out early again and Natal.

          • JeremyR

            I think Sony took a lesson from Nintendo.

            Even when Nintendo was in 3rd place for the past two systems, they never lost money (I think once). Because they had good sales of their IP (and not selling their hardware at a loss helps).

            When they saw that their past success with the PS1 and PS2 didn’t help them any with the PS3, they realized they needed a different plan.

          • neo_firenze

            @SlashZaku: Why wouldn’t devs go multi-platform with the massively expensive to create blockbuster-level games that are demanded by the GAMERS these days? Gotta get a return on your investment, right? Sony and MS need to recognize this, and if they want to try to poach particular titles/franchises, they’d better be willing to pay devs a large amount for platform exclusivity to offset the likely loss in revenue from that title not being available on the other system. Or, as Sony seems to be doing, put strong effort into creating your own 1st party brands.

            And don’t waste your money spending it to secure 3rd party titles when you know that the 3rd party devs pretty much need to move to multi-platform whenever possible. Why pay them extra for something they already have incentive to do on their own? I’d say it’s better to invest that money into your own franchises to build something YOU control, so you’re not at the mercy of a 3rd party or having to pay exorbitant chunks of money for single games. Next game in the series comes out, are you gonna pay again?

            @martindowny: I do believe MS is following the Sony PS2 model… I just don’t think that’s applicable any more with the massive increase in costs to make AAA games with the current gen. Dev teams are larger, marketing budgets are larger, and it’s just become bigger business than it was in 2001.

            “How long will Sony keep making new IP’s that have moderate success? They did well with Uncharted but games like Lair and Untold Legends failed to impress.”

            Hey, gotta start somewhere to turn these franchises into big names. Some will succeed, some will fail. Uncharted, Resistance, Infamous, and Little Big Planet are all big successes from this generation. MotorStorm had a couple of decently successful games in a new brand. Sony has excellent critical response and sales from their MLB games (I know sports games aren’t the thing here, but it’s a significant item – and no other first party has a truly successful yearly sports franchise).

            Maybe a Lair or MAG doesn’t match that, but you can’t expect 100% success. Sony has done a lot to make NEW franchises just this generation.

            And Sony is still utilizing previous generation stuff too – God of War, Gran Turismo, Ratchet & Clank, SingStar (particularly in Europe). These are franchises they started from the ground up.

            What has MS done? They’re still relying on Halo. Forza and Fable are modestly successful, but MS’s first party franchises don’t hold a candle to Sony (or, of course, Nintendo). Some games/franchises associated with MS aren’t really their properties to be able to utilize in the future – Gears of War was a great 360 success, but Epic isn’t going to remain 360 exclusive. Mass Effect 2 and future sequels might come to PS3, and Bioware sure isn’t a 360 exclusive developer.

          • badmoogle

            New studios and new IP’s are risky business and i think MS wants to keep risks to a minimum for this generation.It’s safer to moneyhat 3rd party developers than trying to confront Nintendo and Sony’s old and established IP’s as well as the new ones that come from experienced studios.

            I expect them though to increase their investment on internal studios during next gen when the 360 brand will be even more established than it already is and keep the 3rd party moneyhatting to a minimum.
            If they continue with their current model ( while Sony’s internal studios keep growing bigger and stronger with an already established 2nd party support) they will ultimately fail because as Sony learned in this generation you can’t trust 3rd parties for far too long.

      • zerohour86

        Your aware Naughty Dog is 1st party right? they’ve been owned by sony since the end of the PS2 gen.

    • thebanditking

      No your not the only one, I have been tired of MS’s way of doing business for the last 2 years now. Its broken and does nothing but feed flame wars on the net. Thier childish gloating and territorial pissings are the main reason they will never be truly accecpted. Their brand does not have a personality, its just the guy who buys his way in and pisses off everyone who worked to be there. The 360 is not good enough to be the only console and people need to stop treating it that way. When the 360 first launched I had high hopes for a real Xbox 2, one that created games like Voodoo Vince, Blinx and secured real exclusives. At first the 360 seemed to be getting it right, they locked down two games from Sakaguchi, had two fantastic exclusives from Capcom and brought in Gears of War. All original IP’s that would/could define their brand to be not an alternative/knock off to PlayStation but its own console(like the Xbox)..Though somewhere along the way they lost sight of that goal and instead began to focus on “stealing PS games” as they put it. Stupid timed exclusives for big Japanese PS games that get them absolutely nowhere, and sell poorly to boot. Exclusive/timed DLC and putting the name Halo on just about everything in sight (I’m still waiting for Halo Cereal). All for what? Just to keep Sony at bay, hoping to give people less reasons to buy a PS3. This kind of business is bad for the industry, an creates a vicious cycle of money hatting and pissing off fans as the game goes elsewhere later. Companies like Namco are the biggest offenders but its free money and they can always make up the lost sales with the cheaper to produce PS3 version. Its just sad to see MS pissing money away rather then trying to differentiate their brand. I wonder if the irony of it all is lost on them, that they have to pay to get games Sony was getting any way. FF, DMC, RE, Tales, Tekken, Star Ocean, The Metal Gear name (they are not getting true metal gear because Rising is an action game). All games that Sony has to do nothing to secure, while they create away making games they truly own. While MS focus on taking the stage to do nothing but parade around like a bunch of peacocks saying childish things like “we stole this from PS” and “look how primitive Nintendo’s motion control is”. Worse yet the media feeds into it places like Kotaku and Destructoid all but show you the signed deal to favor 360. I own all 3 console but I was hoping for better from MS.

      • badmoogle

        Well said.I agree completely with all your points.
        I’m also especially glad to see that more and more people are realizing what a farse of a website Kotaku really is.

        Well,i hope MS will start to invest more in their own studios and IP’s from the next generation.

        • thebanditking

          Thanks, its great we can discuss this like adults. This would have been flame bait on IGN or Kotaku. Siliconera has some really cool people in its community. Yeah I picked up on Kotaku’s sleazy low brow bias spew that they call journalism a long time ago, its just sad its popular. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

      • malek86

        It should be noted though, that all those original IPs on the Xbox (Voodoo Vince, Blinx, etc.) apparently didn’t do them any good.When the original Xbox was around, one of the most commonly heard complaint was that “it didn’t have Final Fantasy or any other series”. Maybe not from you, but everyone else said that. I was around at the time, and I remember it.Can’t blame them for changing business tactic this time around, really. After all, casual players like GTA a lot more than Otogi, and they know its name. It might not be the case for us (I liked the first Xbox for its peculiar games, and I eventually got a PS2 to play the famous series too), but for everyone else it is the most important thing.

        • thebanditking

          Yeah its just kind of lame, sure I get GTA but some of the games they go after just dont fit the platform and they go about it in such a childish manner its rather annoying. I never asked them to try and replace PlayStation, rather I supported them for not being the exact same thing. Though I think with respect to their Xbox 1 strategy they did not give their new series enough exposure nor did they give the games enough time to soak in and create a market. Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Spyro and Crash were not household names at first either. Sony made the commitment and stuck with it, it would have been nice to see MS do the same. Though I totally understand where your coming from.

      • gar3

        OK, I’ll bite on this.

        You can’t make a statement like “childish gloating and territorial pissing” because every company from Nintendo to NEC to SEGA to Sony to Microsoft and every other videogame console/handheld manufacturer in between says and does things via PR blasts. It’s their job to promote their products for their shareholders. Don’t make me bring up the first E3 and the “childish gloating” SCEA did there. Also, how didn’t Sony buy its way into the industry? Seriously, Sony ImageSoft is what they had at one point. Sony didn’t build its PlayStation brand from its development/publishing arm, that’s for sure. And if you really want to get down to brass tacks many would argue the PlayStation brand was build on revenge against Nintendo as well as a desire to expand Sony Corporation’s dominance into another realm of electronic entertainment. The last part sounds a lot like Microsoft now doesn’t it?

        You state the 360 is not good enough to be the only console and people need to stop treating it that way but who is treating it this way? Ridiculous American “journalists” on the Internet? Silly fanboys who only buy a certain game console because of a logo? If so, ignore ‘em, it’s easy. There were fanboys during the Genesis vs. SNES era as well it’s just that there wasn’t an Internet as we know it now back then for their voices to be heard outside of the playground. By definition a truly hardcore gamer would have all the current consoles as well as most of the previous ones as well. I don’t know whether or not I’d classify myself as “hardcore” but I played the NES last night and the 360 just a day or two before. Gamers should play games.

        As for “stealing” titles from PlayStation I could say the same thing about Final Fantasy from Nintendo or Tomb Raider from SEGA and countless other franchises from third-party developers/publishers, companies whose only loyalty is money from sales for their shareholders. Sony might have had an overall easier system to program for with the original PlayStation versus the competition but no one can tell me “incentives” weren’t given out as well to bring these franchises “home” to Sony. Lara Croft was basically a spokesperson in US PlayStation commercials for years.

        Regarding Microsoft and “timed exclusives” it’s simply good business for all involved, plain and simple, and this industry is a business after all. Microsoft has by all accounts the easier HD system to develop for this generation so it’s only natural that a development studio/publishing arm is going to listen and strongly consider any offer Microsoft suggests especially when in the largest territory for sales that console is number one in regards to HD console software. With games like Tales of Vesperia and Star Ocean: The Last Hope, whatever the so-called “moneyhat” was, allowed both games to come out earlier on the platform that was easier to develop for, it allowed Microsoft to try and sway people to their console (their job, mind you) and ultimately allowed for a better version of those games to be released at a later date on the PlayStation3 when that platform was healthy enough in the Japanese marketplace to be able to support those titles. As for titles like Final Fantasy XIII, the 360 got the game due to Square-Enix needing it to be on that console to try and over the costs of producing such an expensive game. Shenmue might have been the final nail in SEGA’s coffin due to the same expensive production with massive cost overrun. Microsoft didn’t “steal” anything there. The 360 is an extremely healthy marketplace the world over outside of Japan. Square-Enix’s shareholders don’t give two flips about “console loyalty” when trying to breakeven on game development. If I were a shareholder I would probably sue if the game weren’t on the 360. No company can ignore the worldwide state of the industry.

        You state all of this is just to keep Sony at bay, hoping to give people less reasons to buy a PS3 and that it’s bad business for the industry but, one, that’s what doing business with competition is all about. Bad business for the industry? Record sales each and every single console generation from after the ’83 crash to now beg to differ. The industry has never been better. Even the major worldwide recession hasn’t totally decimated this industry like many others.

        If any of this makes me seem like a Microsoft fanboy myself I’ll clear that up right now. Microsoft is the devil but Sony truly isn’t any better. Perhaps it’s because I’m an older gamer but the exact same stuff was being said at the start of the 32/64-bit wars. The exact same arguments, all you had to do was replace Microsoft with Sony and Sony with Nintendo or SEGA. I have very strong negative feelings for how the industry shifted once Sony became the dominate gaming platform. Going from gameplay to visual spectacle as a focal point. Shoddy hardware compared to the competition. More about the bottom line and appealing to large retailers like Wal*Mart and GameStop versus the much more harmonious relationship Nintendo and SEGA had with the giants as well as the independents/”mom and pop” stores. Again, in many regards Microsoft is much worse than Sony in some of these same arguments but Sony started the trends that now dominate the industry especially here in the US. What we see now is simply a natural progression of what started back in the mid-90s. None of this is for “the good of the gamers.” You can’t have shareholders and also have a good core ethics for videogame creation. The few I’ve seen have either been very small developers that ultimately are being pushed out now due to the high cost involved in HD game console programming (think of the true variety in games from the 8-bit era all the way up to the “128-bit” one that just past), or are regulated to “safe” games that can afford their developers/publishers to take the time to create them (many of Miyamoto’s games at Nintendo come to mind). The best that can be said is NOBODY is better off when there’s only a single dominate player in the marketplace but Microsoft isn’t that total dominating player so far. Nintendo ruled with an iron fist in most markets. SEGA “beat” Nintendo in America only to loose its focus and in turn its fortunes. Sony beat both and ruled for two generations worldwide. All Microsoft did was follow Sony. Many are quick to waive off any future under Apple control but if history is any indicator… .

    • http://www.siliconera.com/ Ishaan

      Just pitching in with my two cents here. I think badmoogle (see his comment above) has the right idea when he says setting up new studios is a risky investment, and this is something Microsoft have experienced first-hand. Moneyhatting developers and providing the media hype they do is the safest and best use of their resources (their bank balance primarily) for the moment.

      Keep in mind that when people ask Iwata about Nintendo doing acquisitions, his reply is always to the effect of, “We’d rather improve third-party relations.” The key word here is “improve,” which essentially means doing the same thing MS are doing. More publishing deals, more marketing support, their collaborations with SEGA etc.

      I understand it’s frustrating to a lot of non-Xbox owners and it might even seem like an “underhanded” way to compete, but you can’t really fault a company for using their resources in the best way possible. At the end of the day, it’s a business, and well…I’m sure third-parties are glad to have a console manufacturer that plays ball with them.

  • xino

    who cares man, probably gonna be another disappointing game:/

  • jakdripr

    New Ip’s please, ms needs more franchises that they own. I honestly couldn’t care less about “stealing” exclusives i just want brand new experiences.

  • ElTopo

    So tired of Microsofts way of doing business. Timed Exclusives? Stupid. “Stealing franchises” Annoying.

    • thebanditking

      Agreed.

Siliconera Tests
Siliconera Videos

Popular