@hardwenzen: I'm not mad, it's more a told you so situation.
You know I'm going deeper into retro, I knew Phil wasn't the right man for Xbox, like I said you all are just now catching onto that. But there is still a few lems hanging on by their finger nails trying to defend him.
There's more than a few lems still defending him. They're a bunch of fools and clowns as you might imagine.
I don't care, but I don't find him as annoying as many other CEOs. Not that I'm updated or anything, just from what I've seen. Shouting for him to resign seems silly, no? Doubt a new CEO will give them what they want.
That is why gamers on forums like these are silly.😂
The very premise of why we are here and the current state of the system wars is entirely silly. Lol... For entertainment purposes only!
It's funny how if you express an unfavourable opinion of someone or something you are "butthurt"
Whereas I believe if you enter a thread and avoid the question that is being asked, and instead pretend to "make fun" of people you perceive to be butthurt, then you are the one who is butthurt.
The Xbox brand is falling apart, that is for certain.
Honestly, I don't care any more, I'm so done with the AAA game space. I'm sorry when studios get caught in the crossfire of exclusives, corporations, and so on...but whatever.
Plenty of fish in the sea, lots of a great independent developers, and I am absolutely drowning in more games than I can possibly play all at once.
Anyone that actually cares about these business theatrics and politics is just doing it for the drama.
But then again, this is System Wars, so carry on with the drama 😋
I agree and tbh honestly I see the AAA gaming industry becoming unsustainable at this point.
Like you said
"I am absolutely drowning in more games than I can possibly play all at once."
I think all of us are. I think most of us have backlogs, I think there are games from previous gens we'd like to go try too.. that are $5-$10. Why even buy a new AAA game for $70 or even $60 if i got a big enough backlog to last 10 years. How many good indie games are out there that are new and under $30 that are great.. alot.
Not to mention all the F2P games out that cost people nothing to play unless they want the MTX cosmetics.
Game subscriptions
Retro games
Indie games
F2P games
Early Access games
What are the budgets for some of these AAA games?? 2 million 10 million 50 million? 100 million??
Can they really turn much profit at $70 per sale.. are there even enough gamers willing to buy these $70 games at launch to turn a profit after they have spent so much to make the big Hollywood AAAA mumbo jumbo spectacular amaze balls game.. that will be half price at $30 in 3 months..
"I am absolutely drowning in more games than I can possibly play all at once."
It's so true. But I do think it's a sign that the way many AAA studios is going.. is just not sustainable. I expect a crash. Maybe it will be a good thing honestly. AAA games mostly blow nowadays anyway, too much invested on production little to no innovation.
"I am absolutely drowning in more games than I can possibly play all at once."
It's so true. But I do think it's a sign that the way many AAA studios is going.. is just not sustainable. I expect a crash. Maybe it will be a good thing honestly. AAA games mostly blow nowadays anyway, too much invested on production little to no innovation.
A crash is highly unlikely. Companies will simply adapt and when they do, gamers would complain.🤷🏽♂️
So many posts in here and yet refuses to answer the question at hand because they think they're making fun of others, and yet they're trying to hide.
Tough week to be a Phil fan, but if the delusion of thinking you're making fun of others helps you cope then so be it 🤣
@onesiphorus: There very well could be a better replacement that will do a better job, but the chances are it'll be someone more brutal.
"I am absolutely drowning in more games than I can possibly play all at once."
It's so true. But I do think it's a sign that the way many AAA studios is going.. is just not sustainable. I expect a crash. Maybe it will be a good thing honestly. AAA games mostly blow nowadays anyway, too much invested on production little to no innovation.
A crash is highly unlikely. Companies will simply adapt and when they do, gamers would complain.🤷🏽♂️
Or worse, bailed out. They're clearly at "too big to fail" status right now, and the US government might have put up a show with the Microsoft-ABK merger/takeover, but when that deal went through it was pretty clear corporate interests will reign supreme.
A lot of boomers (and therefore most politicians) and older still consider video games a childish diversion, but the simple fact is that it is far larger than film, streaming, television, and (iirc) music industries combined.
There won't be a crash and, if there is, we will end up paying for it in both a decrease in quality, increase in price, and a lack of accountability on the offender's part (corporations).
Hey don't let it go to your head like you did to theirs. Stay humble! 🤣😋
"I am absolutely drowning in more games than I can possibly play all at once."
It's so true. But I do think it's a sign that the way many AAA studios is going.. is just not sustainable. I expect a crash. Maybe it will be a good thing honestly. AAA games mostly blow nowadays anyway, too much invested on production little to no innovation.
A crash is highly unlikely. Companies will simply adapt and when they do, gamers would complain.🤷🏽♂️
Or worse, bailed out. They're clearly at "too big to fail" status right now, and the US government might have put up a show with the Microsoft-ABK merger/takeover, but when that deal went through it was pretty clear corporate interests will reign supreme.
A lot of boomers (and therefore most politicians) and older still consider video games a childish diversion, but the simple fact is that it is far larger than film, streaming, television, and (iirc) music industries combined.
There won't be a crash and, if there is, we will end up paying for it in both a decrease in quality, increase in price, and a lack of accountability on the offender's part (corporations).
I can't see the government bailing out video game developers, I know they have done it with the banks and even stuff like auto manufacturers. But I don't think they value this industry enough to bail it out. Maybe I'm wrong
gamers the karans of the world!
Or worse, bailed out. They're clearly at "too big to fail" status right now, and the US government might have put up a show with the Microsoft-ABK merger/takeover, but when that deal went through it was pretty clear corporate interests will reign supreme.
A lot of boomers (and therefore most politicians) and older still consider video games a childish diversion, but the simple fact is that it is far larger than film, streaming, television, and (iirc) music industries combined.
There won't be a crash and, if there is, we will end up paying for it in both a decrease in quality, increase in price, and a lack of accountability on the offender's part (corporations).
I don't think these companies will need a bail out. They will simply downsize with mass layoffs and cancelled projects like they intermittently do and gamers freak out each time.
Hey don't let it go to your head like you did to theirs. Stay humble! 🤣😋
I will try.😏
@Litchie: He's been there for about a decade and sales are down for consoles and games, his GP has zero growth, he refuses to compete with PS.
Would you want someone like that running your company?
But it has 34 million, which isn't too shabby. I think? To make it grow faster, they'd need more tantalizing games. To just scrap it all would be a bit dramatic, better to make more games. Which they seem weirdly reluctant to despite buying half the industry.
As for console sales, they should make better consoles. I think a lot of people still don't understand what the newest Xbox is or what the difference between S or X is. Or maybe they should do no consoles at all, if the vast majority play their games on PC.
So many posts in here and yet refuses to answer the question at hand
Well, I'm just a gamer. I have no idea what MS's inner business is like or what would be good for it. I think it's the same for most on this forum, so instead of answering the question without any certainty, it's better to refrain from doing so.
I don't know if they should fire Phil. It would be better for MS to decide instead of nerds with little information and a lot of emotions on the internet. You're very anti-digital for example, and Phil isn't, so I guess you want him gone mostly for that reason? That's cool for you to think, but as a CEO or as a company, you have to think about what's best for business. I'd personally love to see another traditional console from Nintendo, but that'd probably make them go bankrupt.
I personally don't think Phil Spencer is doing much harm to MS, or doing much of anything that wouldn't have happened anyway.
@Litchie: He's been there for about a decade and sales are down for consoles and games, his GP has zero growth, he refuses to compete with PS.
Would you want someone like that running your company?
But it has 34 million, which isn't too shabby. To make it grow faster, they'd need more tantalizing games. To just scrap it all would be a bit dramatic, better to make more games. Which they seem weirdly reluctant to despite buying half the industry.
As for console sales, they should make better consoles. I think a lot of people still don't understand what the newest Xbox is or what the difference between S or X is. Or maybe they should do no consoles at all, if the vast majority play their games on PC.
Is 34 million that good though for as long as GP has been around and are they counting "gamepass core" users towards that? it wouldn't surprise me as we just saw Sony trying to do with PC players to inflate its PSN numbers.
They can't seem to get games out at a decent time frame and now they've closed 4 studios and let another go independent. That is all under Phil's watch.
Reports are Series X/S are tanking in sales, and yes the naming is beyond stupid and forcing devs to makes features available on both X & S when the S struggles and got called out by the BG3 devs, again all under Phil's watch.
Dumping games on other consoles and devices which is another reason the sales of Xbox are declining, again on Phil's watch.
Phil has had enough time as head of Xbox to ride the ship and has done worse for Xbox than any other head of Xbox. Worst of all he doesn't want to compete for the company that hires him and the gamers who use Xbox.
So many posts in here and yet refuses to answer the question at hand
Well, I'm just a gamer. I have no idea what MS's inner business is like or what would be good for it. I think it's the same for most on this forum, so instead of answering the question without any certainty, it's better to refrain from doing so.
I don't know if they should fire Phil. It would be better for MS to decide instead of nerds with little information and a lot of emotions on the internet. You're very anti-digital for example, and Phil isn't, so I guess you want him gone mostly for that reason? That's cool for you to think, but as a CEO or as a company, you have to think about what's best for business. I'd personally love to see another traditional console from Nintendo, but that'd probably make them go bankrupt.
I personally don't think Phil Spencer is doing much harm to MS, or doing much of anything that wouldn't have happened anyway.
I didn't even mention digital, and my post was referring to that drongo pedro, who instead of having an opinion, he thinks he's "making fun" of those who voice their opinion, he also thinks that if you have an opinion that isn't positive that your butthurt.
I addressed my reasoning for why I thought he should be fired, in what 10yrs he has made the Xbox worse, but if you think differently i'd be happy for you to give me some reasons why you think he's done a great job im all ears.
Is 34 million that good though for as long as GP has been around and are they counting "gamepass core" users towards that?
No idea, I'm not into the business. 34 million subs sounds good to me though.
They can't seem to get games out at a decent time frame and now they've closed 4 studios and let another go independent. That is all under Phil's watch.
I doubt Phil Spencer is the reason why that is happening.
Reports are Series X/S are tanking in sales, and yes the naming is beyond stupid and forcing devs to makes features available on both X & S when the S struggles and got called out by the BG3 devs, again all under Phil's watch.
I doubt Phil Spencer was the person who named the consoles, and is the reason why they don't sell many of them.
Dumping games on other consoles and devices which is another reason the sales of Xbox are declining, again on Phil's watch.
See above.
Phil has had enough time as head of Xbox to ride the ship and has done worse for Xbox than any other head of Xbox.
Kay. I wouldn't know.
Does MS lose money by not selling many consoles and by having a supposed stagnated subscription service? Does that even matter now that they own CoD, WoW, etc.? Last I heard, 10 million people are playing WoW per month. I wouldn't even dare to think how much people spend on microtransactions in CoD and Diablo, or those terrible phone games. I'd bet those things bring MS a shitload of money, and MS might thank Phil Spencer for that, who knows. If they do, firing him would be weird.
Is 34 million that good though for as long as GP has been around and are they counting "gamepass core" users towards that?
No idea, I'm not into the business. 34 million subs sounds good to me though.
They can't seem to get games out at a decent time frame and now they've closed 4 studios and let another go independent. That is all under Phil's watch.
I doubt Phil Spencer is the reason why that is happening.
Reports are Series X/S are tanking in sales, and yes the naming is beyond stupid and forcing devs to makes features available on both X & S when the S struggles and got called out by the BG3 devs, again all under Phil's watch.
I doubt Phil Spencer was the person who named the consoles, and is the reason why they don't sell many of them.
Dumping games on other consoles and devices which is another reason the sales of Xbox are declining, again on Phil's watch.
See above.
Phil has had enough time as head of Xbox to ride the ship and has done worse for Xbox than any other head of Xbox.
Kay. I wouldn't know.
Does MS lose money by not selling many consoles and by having a supposed stagnated subscription service? Does that even matter now that they own CoD, WoW, etc.? Last I heard, 10 million people are playing WoW per month. I wouldn't even dare to think how much people spend on microtransactions in CoD and Diablo, or those terrible phone games. I'd bet those things bring MS a shitload of money, and MS might thank Phil Spencer for that, who knows. If they do, firing him would be weird.
Wait so if it's bad (less console and games sales) it's not Phil's fault even though he's the HEAD OF XBOX, but if its good then MS should thank Phil lol.
You been drinking the kool aid mate?
I've said it a while ago, and I'll say it again. If Phil Spencer doesn't have a success by the end of this gen, then it might be time to let him go. He's had 10 years and a fresh start of a new console to get it together. I mean, the Wii U was a humiliating flop. Yet Nintendo managed to turn it around with the Switch.
i think Phil Spencer inherited a sunk ship with the Xbox One, repaired it, and pointed it in the right direction.. from hardware options, to services, to more game studios..
but as stated in the OP, there is a toxic echo chamber around Xbox that simply isn't going to go away.. for example, PlayStation shuts down studios and has a huge layoff, it's a headline for a day and everyone moves on.. Xbox shuts down studios and has a huge layoff, and it's dissected for weeks with blame being placed on every facet of the Xbox business..
honestly, i don't know what the solution will be in the near-term.. "firing Phil" will only bolster those who have been making bad faith arguments this entire time and those same people will just continue to make bad faith arguments about whoever replaces him.. so with that said, what's the point?..
the only thing Xbox can do is what any gaming company should be doing: deliver good games.. the negative news cycles will come and go but it's dampened by good software for gamers to enjoy..
Toxic chamber around Xbox WHICH YOU, XBOTS created it. Funded by Xbox execs.
You just proved how Xbox fandom is fucking damn stupid. No wonder why Xbox is dying. Really, no wonder. Phil Spencer repaired Xbone. I can't believe WTF i'm reading here.
Xbots and their damn whataboutism. "Sony too" right. LOL
This just damn proves how Xbox and Xbots and paid shills are so damn stupid. You are creating toxic environment by yourself.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/ign-phil-spencer-and-the-battle-for-xbox%E2%80%99s-soul.866928/
Xbot shills defending Spencer and absolving him from any responsibility.Wait so if it's bad (less console and games sales) it's not Phil's fault even though he's the HEAD OF XBOX, but if its good then MS should thank Phil lol.
You been drinking the kool aid mate?
I believe I made it quite clear I don't know shit about this. I did not say that anything is or isn't Phil's fault. I do think all blame for Xbox consoles having terrible names and sales probably shouldn't be put on one person though, CEO or not. Look at Nintendo's Iwata who was CEO with the Wii and NDS, which were incredibly successful, but he was also the CEO with Wii U. So.. was the Wii U his fault? Should he have been fired for that?
If you want to take that as me defending Phil, you can I guess. But I don't know what he has or hasn't done. I don't know how much blame or praise should be put on him, or why. I have no idea what MS thinks of him. I have no idea how much power he has over things, or if it even matters. Without me being presented with proof of these things, it will stay that way. I don't really care though, so don't spend time on that for me.
Uncle Phil knows who's talking crap on Xtwitter and pays no mind to those freaks...
lol :P
Microsoft must be the must struggling multi trillion dollars company in the world.
Wait so if it's bad (less console and games sales) it's not Phil's fault even though he's the HEAD OF XBOX, but if its good then MS should thank Phil lol.
You been drinking the kool aid mate?
I believe I made it quite clear I don't know shit about this. I did not say that anything is or isn't Phil's fault. I do think all blame for Xbox consoles having terrible names and sales probably shouldn't be put on one person though, CEO or not. Look at Nintendo's Iwata who was CEO with the Wii and NDS, which were incredibly successful, but he was also the CEO with Wii U. So.. was the Wii U his fault? Should he have been fired for that?
If you want to take that as me defending Phil, you can I guess. But I don't know what he has or hasn't done. I don't know how much blame or praise should be put on him, or why. I have no idea what MS thinks of him. I have no idea how much power he has over things, or if it even matters. Without me being presented with proof of these things, it will stay that way. I don't really care though, so don't spend time on that for me.
And yet you keep making arguments for Phil. He is the head of Xbox, and EVERYTHING Xbox would go through him. I mean who do you think is making all the decisions if the HEAD of Xbox isn't, Bill Gates?
You can claim the success when you're doing great, but you also have to take the blame when you're not.
Xbox is not doing great right now there is no denying that, and Phil has to take the blame for that.
He's had a decade to right the ship and he hasn't.
Phil did a lot of good in bringing the xbox brand back into a more positive light, but it might be time for someone else to step up to the plate now. He's made some really poor decisions.
Wait so if it's bad (less console and games sales) it's not Phil's fault even though he's the HEAD OF XBOX, but if its good then MS should thank Phil lol.
You been drinking the kool aid mate?
I believe I made it quite clear I don't know shit about this. I did not say that anything is or isn't Phil's fault. I do think all blame for Xbox consoles having terrible names and sales probably shouldn't be put on one person though, CEO or not. Look at Nintendo's Iwata who was CEO with the Wii and NDS, which were incredibly successful, but he was also the CEO with Wii U. So.. was the Wii U his fault? Should he have been fired for that?
If you want to take that as me defending Phil, you can I guess. But I don't know what he has or hasn't done. I don't know how much blame or praise should be put on him, or why. I have no idea what MS thinks of him. I have no idea how much power he has over things, or if it even matters. Without me being presented with proof of these things, it will stay that way. I don't really care though, so don't spend time on that for me.
And yet you keep making arguments for Phil. He is the head of Xbox, and EVERYTHING Xbox would go through him. I mean who do you think is making all the decisions if the HEAD of Xbox isn't, Bill Gates?
You can claim the success when you're doing great, but you also have to take the blame when you're not.
Xbox is not doing great right now there is no denying that, and Phil has to take the blame for that.
He's had a decade to right the ship and he hasn't.
I'd make a small correction and say that Phil is the head of Microsoft Gaming now. Sarah Bond is the head of Xbox. However, this move had to come from someone other than Sarah because Bethesda isn't part of Xbox Studios, but MS Gaming instead.
People shout demands with very little information that is mostly controlled by the media.
For example some media state its a disgrace and shouldn't have happened. Others state the studios where the obvious choice due to the rest being in mid production of games and they where not.
Everyone has the right of their opinion, but nobody knows the full story.
Unless you understand the industry, measurement should be on what they produce.
Due to DaVillain closing down my thread asking me to post in other irrelevant topics that aren't related I'm dropping this here:
If you had any lingering thoughts that MS any idea what they were doing in gaming, this should fix that mental lapse for you..
Funny how NOW that the shit hits the fan, they let the new black girl have to answer for and take the heat for everything that's happened, when Phil Spencer was the one who created and solely landed xbox in the situation it's in right now.
Gamepass, Day n Date PC releases, play anywhere, 80 billion dollar acquisitions without means to maintain the studios...yep that's Sarah Bond's doing?
Where TF is Phill now? In Japan somewhere getting his anime protag harem on while the xbox brand burns
Scummy company all the way around.
@TheEroica: For some this is serious shit which makes it extra entertaining. Exhibit A above me.😂
This is a video game board.
As much as you're on here it's laughable for you to say, "For some this is serious shit" and not be referring to yourself logging hours on this board like a full time job.
@above_average: Posting on a forum is low effort. Seeing folks like you triggered over Xbox; a company that is not going anywhere, is even more entertaining.😂
You aren't very bright.
That first sentence reinforces the last post I made.
I made 1 or 2 posts in the last day or so yet you become Mrs Cleo and suggest I'm triggered but you're here 24/7 damage controlling and warring with users about PS and defending X as if your life depended on it LMFAO.
continue to be a clown Pedro
And yet you keep making arguments for Phil. He is the head of Xbox, and EVERYTHING Xbox would go through him. I mean who do you think is making all the decisions if the HEAD of Xbox isn't, Bill Gates?
You can claim the success when you're doing great, but you also have to take the blame when you're not.
Xbox is not doing great right now there is no denying that, and Phil has to take the blame for that.
He's had a decade to right the ship and he hasn't.
I'd make a small correction and say that Phil is the head of Microsoft Gaming now. Sarah Bond is the head of Xbox. However, this move had to come from someone other than Sarah because Bethesda isn't part of Xbox Studios, but MS Gaming instead.
Sarah Bond would have nothing to do with these decisions; she's the president of Xbox (platform and hardware).
Matt Booty is the president of game content and studios; he is the one making these decisions.
However, Phil Spencer, being the CEO of Microsoft Gaming, is equally responsible for the decisions made by his executive leadership team. It's not his job to tell Matt Booty exactly what to do but, it's absolutely being done based on what he's set out to do.
Ex. Phil Spencer is on the record (FTC hearing) saying that Xbox *needs* to be profitable and, unfortunately, their core business is shrinking, and Zenimax hasn't exactly been performing very well financially (see Redfall, Deathloop, Ghostwire etc). I don't think we need all the details but, I think it's safe to say that Matt Booty would rather accelerate Blade, Indiana Jones, Starfield, Fallout 5, Elder Scrolls 6, new Doom etc. than wait around for whatever Tango and, Arkane Austin were working on.
And yet you keep making arguments for Phil. He is the head of Xbox, and EVERYTHING Xbox would go through him. I mean who do you think is making all the decisions if the HEAD of Xbox isn't, Bill Gates?
You can claim the success when you're doing great, but you also have to take the blame when you're not.
Xbox is not doing great right now there is no denying that, and Phil has to take the blame for that.
He's had a decade to right the ship and he hasn't.
I'd make a small correction and say that Phil is the head of Microsoft Gaming now. Sarah Bond is the head of Xbox. However, this move had to come from someone other than Sarah because Bethesda isn't part of Xbox Studios, but MS Gaming instead.
Sarah Bond would have nothing to do with these decisions; she's the president of Xbox (platform and hardware).
Matt Booty is the president of game content and studios; he is the one making these decisions.
However, Phil Spencer, being the CEO of Microsoft Gaming, is equally responsible for the decisions made by his executive leadership team. It's not his job to tell Matt Booty exactly what to do but, it's absolutely being done based on what he's set out to do.
Ex. Phil Spencer is on the record (FTC hearing) saying that Xbox *needs* to be profitable and, unfortunately, their core business is shrinking, and Zenimax hasn't exactly been performing very well financially (see Redfall, Deathloop, Ghostwire etc). I don't think we need all the details but, I think it's safe to say that Matt Booty would rather accelerate Blade, Indiana Jones, Starfield, Fallout 5, Elder Scrolls 6, new Doom etc. than wait around for whatever Tango and, Arkane Austin were working on.
Agreed.
On a game not needing to be exclusive to be successful: Yes that's true of course. From our point of view, exclusive games are not inherently superior to multiplats. It makes no difference. There are many cases where current exclusives would be better if they were multiplat (looking at you Nintendo!). From our point of view it's better to keep everything multiplat. All the current consoles are functionally basically the same and the PC can also do a dam fine impression of a console when needed.
But you are not looking at this from corporate enough. This is SW Gods dammit!! :P
Historically the only successful way to build a platform has been exclusive content. Having the right content exclusive to your platform. Halo 2 showed MS that Xbox Live was onto something back in the day. Nintendo...all of it. Steam was just a patching service for counter strike before HL2 was released (which needed Steam to run, thus compelling loads of people to sign up). PS lived on it's exclusives and got battered during the PS3 era because 3rd parties went multiplat and Sony were not making many of their own games (a mistake they spent the gen setting right).
The thing is there is not a single example of a gaming platform I can think of that is successful simply because it exists. Anyone that tried that went bust.
200 million paying 15 quid a month (subject to change) year in year out. Circa 30 Billion a year in revenue at least. Lots of mindshare too. Lots of user data to sell. Lots of opportunities to upsell other services. That's what MSs top brass are looking at.
Yes: there is currently a cost of production problem for exclusives and, at the moment, MS and Sony are cracking under the pressure. Currently consoles can't support their own production costs. You have a service bringing in at least 30 billion+ a year: all of a sudden billion dollar productions don't look so scary.
But the only way Gamepass will see any rapid growth is if MS make better games and put them behind the paywall. By all means bring gamepass to every platform possible....but people need to subscribe to access them. That's how to grow the service.
The big difficulty, of course, is define "Make better games". As you say: it's subjective. That's the challenge for MS. The general consensus around MSs releases generally seems to be "meh" though. Sometimes they score well or make a good first impression....then the reaction changes to "oh....that's it". They are not landing hits at the moment. I hope that changes but, so far this gen, not a lot of positivity around MSs output. Making well loved, highly successful, mega selling hits is not an exact science (that's probably a good thing mind :P). But it's something MS needs to get better at.
What you are proposing will fail. Gamers are not going to greenlit games being locked to GamePass. It just would not fly especially for Xbox. If you want Xbox to die overnight, make games exclusive to GamePass. Also locking your game to subscription also prevents gamers who want to pay more for a single game from paying for that single game. That is lost of revenue just cause. Exclusivity can exist outside of hardware and that is still a viable option while being consumer friendly. You don't need to buy Netflix, Hulu, Spotify specific hardware to gain access to the content but the content is still exclusive to the service.
In order for subscription to be scalable, the process for game development has to be optimized. Let's take a look at Xbox for example. They are using Unreal, Unity, Slipspace, ID, Creative Engine etc for development of games across multiple studios. They need to consolidate that shit. That means, cutting down to bone. Purge everything that is unnecessary and standardize the development across all of your studios. Keynote is standardizing the development process not standardize the type of game. Next, focus on smaller experiences that are easier to make but delivers on expectations regardless of the genre. These big ass cinematic games should be irregular and not the norm.
From the news, it seems like step one is in progress.🙃
Who said anything about hardware exclusive? MS should continue to get gamepass everywhere it possibly can. That's part of the trick to getting netflix numbers. Get it on switch, PS, phones, TV OS, toasters, fridges, frickin vending machines.
There would be short term pain, as i say, but if the gamble pays off and you have rapid growth in subscribers and little in the way of unsubs.....worth it (from corporate shill point of view :P)
But why would it fail? Look at the industry. Look at what's selling. Look at history. People are spending 350 bucks on a decrepid 8 year old console that only plays games. It's still selling well which is bonkers. It ain't selling just because it's a portable PS3. PC gamers run after hardware upgrades when something like a Crysis type game (haven't had one in a while) arrives. Software sells hardware. Every successful platform is there because of it's games. Having the right games. Even MS were at their strongest when they were delivering the content. Making the right deals. Gears, Halo, Forza, Mass effect....big hits. I think it was braid that really put xbox live arcade on the map back in the day too.
"But look what happened with Helldivers 2" i hear someone say. The only reason Sony had to back peddle there was because they sold the game in a bunch of countries where PSN is not actually available. That was the screw up. If PSN was available in every country then they would have gone ahead with it. Gamers would moan and pout and stomp and shout.....and in the end they would have signed up to PSN to continue to play. Valve did the same thing with HL2 for Steam and look at it now.
You have the right content (and, on paper at least, MS have a crap load of the right content) and, in the end, gamers will subscribe/buy what they need to to get access to that content. Arguably a gamepass sub is a much lower barrier to entry than needing to buy a console or even pay the 70 quid for a game. If it's everywhere....who knows?
As for your second paragraph......streamlining tools and processes is certainly a good idea in theory. But I think EA tried that last gen by trying to get everyone to move to frostbyte. It caused a lot of issues and they needed to backtrack in the end.
That's not to say MS shouldn't do anything: but it's a massive challenge. On paper you basically have ID make the MS engine (based on ID tech) and have all internal studios move to It and other developers have mini engine teams that take a build of IdTech and customise it to their own requirements. Then it's the same tools for 3D modelling, texturing, animating, sound production etc. across the board. But it's far more difficult to make work in practice. People get used to their tools and their workflows and yanking that out from under them can cause....er....fussin.
On your last point: i mostly agree. MS (and sony for that matter) could definitely do with more variety. More AA experiential and indie type games too. Not every game needs to be a AAA blockbuster. It does get tiresome. But AAAs definitely do have their place. They are headline grabbers and head turners. As platform holders though (and MS have been very poor at this aspect in recent years) their AAA games should be setting the state of the art in tech and production values. When they come along they should be a big deal.
However when i say state of the art i don't just mean graphics. Everything should be pushed. E.g. the next elder scrolls should not only set a new bar visually for open world games, but also the underlying simulation should be making people jaws drop in awe. E.g. take that Skyrim NPC mod and run with it with big MS FU money so that NPCs not only look fantastic, but also do a far far better job of feigning intelligence (Of the big 3, MS are uniquely positioned to pursue such an endeavour. Sony and Nintendo are not chasing the AI crowd overall as businesses). If it needs an NPU in your PC or a new Xbox then so be it....get it done.
Quite frankly if ES 6 plays like ES5 and NPCs basically have the same behaviour and it's just pretty-ish then it's going to be another swing and a miss from Bethesda. Don't even bother....just re-release ES5 again :P.
And yet you keep making arguments for Phil. He is the head of Xbox, and EVERYTHING Xbox would go through him. I mean who do you think is making all the decisions if the HEAD of Xbox isn't, Bill Gates?
You can claim the success when you're doing great, but you also have to take the blame when you're not.
Xbox is not doing great right now there is no denying that, and Phil has to take the blame for that.
He's had a decade to right the ship and he hasn't.
I'd make a small correction and say that Phil is the head of Microsoft Gaming now. Sarah Bond is the head of Xbox. However, this move had to come from someone other than Sarah because Bethesda isn't part of Xbox Studios, but MS Gaming instead.
Sarah Bond would have nothing to do with these decisions; she's the president of Xbox (platform and hardware).
Matt Booty is the president of game content and studios; he is the one making these decisions.
However, Phil Spencer, being the CEO of Microsoft Gaming, is equally responsible for the decisions made by his executive leadership team. It's not his job to tell Matt Booty exactly what to do but, it's absolutely being done based on what he's set out to do.
Ex. Phil Spencer is on the record (FTC hearing) saying that Xbox *needs* to be profitable and, unfortunately, their core business is shrinking, and Zenimax hasn't exactly been performing very well financially (see Redfall, Deathloop, Ghostwire etc). I don't think we need all the details but, I think it's safe to say that Matt Booty would rather accelerate Blade, Indiana Jones, Starfield, Fallout 5, Elder Scrolls 6, new Doom etc. than wait around for whatever Tango and, Arkane Austin were working on.
Agreed.
First off Zero, regardless of what his title says, he would have the final say when it comes to Xbox.
And are you 2 serious? how would MS expect its games to sell well when they're on GP day 1?
It makes no sense.
Who said anything about hardware exclusive? MS should continue to get gamepass everywhere it possibly can. That's part of the trick to getting netflix numbers. Get it on switch, PS, phones, TV OS, toasters, fridges, frickin vending machines.
There would be short term pain, as i say, but if the gamble pays off and you have rapid growth in subscribers and little in the way of unsubs.....worth it (from corporate shill point of view :P)
But why would it fail? Look at the industry. Look at what's selling. Look at history. People are spending 350 bucks on a decrepid 8 year old console that only plays games. It's still selling well which is bonkers. It ain't selling just because it's a portable PS3. PC gamers run after hardware upgrades when something like a Crysis type game (haven't had one in a while) arrives. Software sells hardware. Every successful platform is there because of it's games. Having the right games. Even MS were at their strongest when they were delivering the content. Making the right deals. Gears, Halo, Forza, Mass effect....big hits. I think it was braid that really put xbox live arcade on the map back in the day too.
"But look what happened with Helldivers 2" i hear someone say. The only reason Sony had to back peddle there was because they sold the game in a bunch of countries where PSN is not actually available. That was the screw up. If PSN was available in every country then they would have gone ahead with it. Gamers would moan and pout and stomp and shout.....and in the end they would have signed up to PSN to continue to play. Valve did the same thing with HL2 for Steam and look at it now.
You have the right content (and, on paper at least, MS have a crap load of the right content) and, in the end, gamers will subscribe/buy what they need to to get access to that content. Arguably a gamepass sub is a much lower barrier to entry than needing to buy a console or even pay the 70 quid for a game. If it's everywhere....who knows?
As for your second paragraph......streamlining tools and processes is certainly a good idea in theory. But I think EA tried that last gen by trying to get everyone to move to frostbyte. It caused a lot of issues and they needed to backtrack in the end.
That's not to say MS shouldn't do anything: but it's a massive challenge. On paper you basically have ID make the MS engine (based on ID tech) and have all internal studios move to It and other developers have mini engine teams that take a build of IdTech and customise it to their own requirements. Then it's the same tools for 3D modelling, texturing, animating, sound production etc. across the board. But it's far more difficult to make work in practice. People get used to their tools and their workflows and yanking that out from under them can cause....er....fussin.
On your last point: i mostly agree. MS (and sony for that matter) could definitely do with more variety. More AA experiential and indie type games too. Not every game needs to be a AAA blockbuster. It does get tiresome. But AAAs definitely do have their place. They are headline grabbers and head turners. As platform holders though (and MS have been very poor at this aspect in recent years) their AAA games should be setting the state of the art in tech and production values. When they come along they should be a big deal.
However when i say state of the art i don't just mean graphics. Everything should be pushed. E.g. the next elder scrolls should not only set a new bar visually for open world games, but also the underlying simulation should be making people jaws drop in awe. E.g. take that Skyrim NPC mod and run with it with big MS FU money so that NPCs not only look fantastic, but also do a far far better job of feigning intelligence (Of the big 3, MS are uniquely positioned to pursue such an endeavour. Sony and Nintendo are not chasing the AI crowd overall as businesses). If it needs an NPU in your PC or a new Xbox then so be it....get it done.
Quite frankly if ES 6 plays like ES5 and NPCs basically have the same behaviour and it's just pretty-ish then it's going to be another swing and a miss from Bethesda. Don't even bother....just re-release ES5 again :P.
I believed I mentioned why locking games to GamePass will fail but I will re-iterate. Gamers who want to pay for games and not rent would make a stink. Xbox making controversial moves get gamers more triggered than any of the big three. Those two factors are why it would fail besides not making any financial sense.
My mentioning of hardware exclusive was to reinforce your point.🙃
Streamlining can come in various forms and does not necessarily mean limiting devs to one engine. They can streamline the process of getting games onto their platform with a custom workflow independent of the content creation tools or engine. This is absolutely needed to meet GamePass expectations and to ween off of third party content.
As for the rest.👍🏽
@Pedro: Sure they would make a stink. Let em*. In the end, If gamepass has the games people want to play and Gamepass is the only way to play them....people are going to cough up. People pay for things to be able to play things all the time.
*Reminder: I have my corporate shill hat on here! I'd prefer if they didn't do that of course and kept just bringing games to everything. I'm not a game pass/sub fan.
Yeah I think so but he won't. To my memory, shuttering of Tango is the worst gaming atrocity done I can think of. Specifically when it's juxtaposed against their aquisition spending. There is no way it's acceptable to waste billions on aquisitions only to fail to spend a much smaller amount to keep a studio open and making games.
The strategy of it is also non-sensical. How can they be so daft to look at the solitary metrics of a game they themselves prevented sales of with their gamepass platform? Also, any platform, isn't succesful on one game, it's successful on a large array of games that causes people to say "you know what, these 10 games are enough I'm buying an xbox!". Historally Playstation and Nintendo succeeded when they created a large collection of diverse games and then the network effects from those took over from there. Hi-Fi rush is a perfect example of the *start* of something along those lines; but you can't do it with just one. They really really needed like 5 of these level of games to come out a year and then bam, they'd probably be able to beat Sony given they are slipping on output
Phil and Sarah and the rest should be ashamed. I hope they can't even go to a restauarant in peace without someone telling them to **** off of a staff spitting in their food.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment