Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Excellent rebuttal. Very astute, logical, and flawless arguments!That's a lot of salt and goofy deductions for a throwaway comment, brave warrior.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
In defense of Phil Spencer - he is not the problem with Xbox
- Thread starter LavitzSlambert
- Start date
- Opinion Business Cringe
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Me, who have been reading the same arguments on forums for years now:I actually went ahead and asked ChatGPT just that
Last edited:
supernova8
Banned
I read all of that while taking a dump.
I sort of see your points but at the same time, I have to ask the question:
"If Playstation were losing as badly as Xbox is, would Jim Ryan still have his job?" (I think the answer is "no")
To be more explicit, I don't think people are holding Xbox up to any standard to which they wouldn't also hold Playstation. It just so happens that Playstation is delivering better than Xbox is. I'm personally less-than-impressed with Playstation output (mainly because I don't like Spiderman, Horizon, or God of War, just a personal preference thing) but it's still better than Xbox so of course Xbox gets all the schtick. Besides, the PS5's crazy sales numbers demonstrates that Sony/Playstation is doing something right.
Last edited:
coffinbirth
Member
Suggesting you might need to get out more often seemed rather astute to me.
Seeing a lot of Phil bashing lately due to unrest within the Xbox fanbase and the flop of Redfall seen by fan lads as an opportunity to dunk on him. The truth is that without Phil’s efforts over the past 10 years, there wouldn’t even be an Xbox Game Studios. That’s not to say he should be immune to criticism, but the amount and severity of it is overblown. Make no mistake, I am no stan for Phil. This is coming from someone who sees absolutely no point to owning an Xbox since the 360 and who finds PS+ Extra better than Game Pass. Regardless, the amount and kind of criticism being thrown his way is misguided.
Let’s start by looking at Microsoft as a company and their relationship with Xbox Game Studios, this is key because its ultimately what Phil is beholden to in terms of budget and strategy.
People on this board don’t seem to understand what kind of company Microsoft is and what their relationship with gaming is. Microsoft is fundamentally a middle man “platform” company first and foremost. They began this way and it’s their core competency. From Windows to Office, Azure, etc, they almost never make the best software (except for Excel). The reason they are so successful is because they provide a platform that does everything, even if they don’t do it exceptionally well. They are a tech company first, not a toy company like Nintendo, not an electronics or entertainment company like Sony.
It doesn’t matter to Microsoft as a whole if Xbox is in third place so long as they are profitable. And before someone comes in to assert their thesis on their last 10 income statements - it doesn’t matter how much money Xbox has lost Microsoft. Microsoft sees that as an acceptable cost of acquiring market share for future profits. They are so wildly successful that it means nothing, they’re fine with taking a hit for several years in order to build their moat. In particular right now Microsoft’s focus under Nadella is to become THE big player in the SaaS and PaaS markets. They understand services are the way to future profitability in their core markets, and they have taken this approach with the Xbox division too.
Now take a look at this, the history of Microsoft’s game studio:
Xbox Game Studios - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Xbox Games Studios has historically been a publisher, first and foremost, NOT a development studio. Look at the history and you’ll see how few games have been developed by already-in-house Microsoft teams. Their strategy has ALWAYS been to acquire existing development studios and fold their teams in under the Microsoft brand, acting as a publisher. Take a couple minutes to skim through that wiki, you will see each of their early big franchises like Flight Simulator, MechWarrior, Halo, and Fable were all buyouts of existing teams. With the exception of Forza, almost all of these dev teams are no longer operating under Microsoft (or at all) with much of the institutional knowledge gone elsewhere.
You’ll see that the existing dev teams in XGS today are almost all new acquisitions from the past few years, or have have enough turnover and change to consider themselves brand new teams. Furthermore, these acquisitions historically have been run as independent game shops and were Microsoft brand in name only. Traditionally this is how Microsoft operated their software company acquisitions. That is changing, as of very recently (COVID), and Matt Booty has been transparent about this in a podcast interview with Friends Per Second:
That change looks to be a stronger partnership between XGS and among its dev teams - much like the models that have been in place at Sony and Nintendo for a long time, and often cited as one of the biggest benefits to working with PlayStation from small dev teams - access to their resources and guidance. A change so recent will obviously take time to see the effects of.
Last, we look at Phil Spencer and Xbox division itself. Nadella became CEO in 2014, got rid of Mattrick and put Phil as head of Xbox. Considering the amount of damage already done, Phil’s first major task was to stop the bleeding and return to profitability. Here lies the big disconnect I see on this forum, in that “Phil has had 10 years to fix this and he has failed!” It’s quite the opposite, especially considering just how dominant Sony has been, and Nintendo since 2017.
What people also forget (or never knew to begin with) is that Phil was also responsible for Groove Music, Movies and TV, and Xbox Entertainment Studios. His focus was not solely on gaming! In fact, guess who Phil’s boss was - it was Terry Myerson, the VP of Operating Systems, who at the time was in charge of Windows, Windows Phone, and Xbox. In case you didn’t know, Windows was undergoing a huge transformation due to Nadella’s company-wide shift to cloud services and away from their traditional OS market. We also know what happened to Windows Phone. So in 2014 Xbox was neither the focus of Phil’s boss, nor the sole focus of Phil himself.
Still, within Phil’s first year as Xbox head, they acquired notable IPs like Gears and Minecraft (they bought Mojang entirely). I don’t need to explain how big of a win that was in terms of bringing money into Xbox. They also gave Gears to The Coalition, shut down Xbox Entertainment Studios, and had to contend with the unmitigated disaster Xbox One Phil immediately inherited. They also decided to reveal Ori and the Blind Forest, while it was an indie game it had the backing of Xbox as publisher which helped make the game a huge success (which it surpassed in its follow up, Will of the Wisps).
It took Microsoft until 2017 to consider Xbox an important part of their future strategy, likely due to the company’s pivot toward cloud computing and services with Game Pass. Finally Phil was promoted to executive VP and given a seat at the table, reporting directly to CEO Nadella and with Matt Booty from Mojang filling the role of head of XGS development. This is probably the most important part in this post, because it’s clear that until 2017 Xbox was not given clout by Microsoft. Given the company’s history and organizational structure, I am not surprised it's taking a long time to turn Xbox around. 2017 and beyond is the period where Phil actually has a real voice and pull within Microsoft as a whole, and what he should be judged for is overall direction of Xbox. Matt Booty is in the hotseat in terms of first-party output, which has been the biggest criticism of Xbox as a platform.
Still, if you look at what Xbox has done during this timeframe, you will see a lot of positives. Aside from the name, Xbox Series X is great hardware and has excellent features. Game Pass has been wildly successful. Although I don't like the precedent set due to the scope of industry consolidation, Microsoft's acquisitions of Zenimax and their pending Activision-Blizzard look to be huge positives for the Xbox brand. I haven't played it but from what I understand, critically, Halo Infinite's single player campaign was great and finally has the series back on track. Forza Horizon 5 was GOTY material. These are all signs that what Xbox is doing under Phil is working. Microsoft is happy with the results as Phil just got promoted to CEO of Xbox in 2022 and is now calling all of the shots for Microsoft's gaming segment with minimal oversight from Nadella.
I will close with some legitimate criticisms of Phil and speculation about why I suspect Phil is not solely to blame:
1. Xbox Series S resulted in a worse experience overall for gamers by holding back top performance of Series X games.
While it's not the best outcome for a gamer who wants the full next gen experience, it probably is the best move for Xbox and its existing userbase. Even with a bunch of great exclusives, it's going to be hard for Xbox's comeback against Nintendo and Sony arguably at their peak of success. The $500 Series X is a huge ask even of existing Xbox fans, and Phil seems fine making a sacrifice on the "full potential" not being realized in exchange for more people being able to experience games. Expanded audience over high end experience, it's as simple as that, and no surprise considering the Game Pass subscription model they are pushing.
2. Phil allowed Halo Infinite to be rushed and turn into a flop.
I couldn't agree more. Considering Phil as a gamer himself would be opposed to how this was handled, I have to think this was not his decision. Halo was Microsoft's trump card and a way to rekindle the spark for Xbox this generation, and Phil knew it had to be good. Considering all the tales of its troubled development, it sounds like 343 themselves were largely to blame. Considering how pivotal it was to the success of the console, I suspect the major delay was the middle ground Phil was able to negotiate. Microsoft as a whole needed it to get out the door and unfortunately even with the extra time that was bought, it wasn't enough to save the game.
3. It was dumb to allow Redfall to release in such a state.
Yeah with his immediate backpedal it's hard to see the case of why Phil decided to do this. Perhaps XGS is still allowing decisions to be made by the teams themselves, and maybe that is the wrong answer, in which Phil should still be criticized. But considering how little fun people are saying they have outside of the technical issues, I wonder if the game is just nothing special. In that case maybe Phil did the right thing in releasing when it did, in the state it did, to get it out of the way before summer. It's too soon to know if this was the right call but still disappointing how this turned out.
4. Phil's recent quote "We lost the biggest console generation there is to lose so when we build on Xbox, we want it to feel awesome. So if we focused on great games, that doesn't mean we'll win the console race".
Missing the context of which Phil said this, which was talking about how the PS4/XBO generation built up gamers' digital libraries and how even releasing excellent games would not necessarily drive Xbox console sales. I don't like this, and I disagree - history has shown a couple superstar games can sell a platform. Since 2017, Microsoft's strategy to sell their platform (really just Game Pass) has been top priority. They are not just trying to make excellent games, a big focus is on the experience with their platform. I see their point, look at the Switch. An enormous hit, and you've seen many people's reactions that if Nintendo's next console doesn't support the libraries they built up or have feature parity, they're going to "wait and see" rather than buy into Nintendo's ecosystem. Seems to be Microsoft as a whole's stance and the whole point of their Windows and Azure offerings.
5. Phil isn't doing a good job with Microsoft first party output.
I agree here, and I don't think this is something Phil personally excels at. He is very good at running the business as a whole and being gamer focused, he understands the market and the platform. He just isn't getting it done managing XGS the way Nintendo and Sony are able to. Matt Booty was put in this position in 2018, and Phil is responsible for that choice. At the same time I'm not sure if there has been enough time to see the fruits of this labor, and the way XGS is working with the dev teams has been changing too. Like Phil has stated many times, it's like they're building a dev studio from the ground up.
TL;DR Phil Spencer is not infallible but he is good for Microsoft, good for gamers, and good for the industry. Xbox's problems are deeply rooted in the way Microsoft operates its business, and how they viewed their gaming division until 2017. Xbox has been moving in a positive direction because of Phil's efforts and while he bares responsibility for the lackluster first-party output, the criticism being thrown at him might be better directed at Matt Booty and/or Microsoft as a whole.
Seriously what has he done to deserve such a defense....he has had a decade at the helm of Xbox. Literally, all you have said it's Microsoft causing the issues when Microsoft itself is a very well-managed company that is the industry leader in the field...in your eyes what are Phil's responsibilities? The way you make it sound he might as well not be there since Microsoft takes all the flak.
The only thing he has delivered are empty promises, a strategy that basically amounted to buy it all and no plan b.
Besides forza every major xbox ip has been turned to trash keep in mind these ips were massive system sellers that eclipsed even sonys in the past forcing sony to pump out quality exclusives to compete.
You give any major brand the resources xbox has and trust me they wont complain. Phil has had his chances and the excuses and grace period has run out, he needs to deliver and will be judged like nearly all others have(most would have been gone within 5 years the way the brand has gone under phil).
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Gold Member
Exclusive great games won’t change the console market.
Of course he’s the fucking problem, OP. You’ve heard it out of his own mouth.
Of course he’s the fucking problem, OP. You’ve heard it out of his own mouth.
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
That was just him preparing the Xbox fans for future disappointments.
FunkMiller
Gold Member
I genuinely don’t believe how anyone can hear the head of a video games company say that making great games doesn’t sell more consoles or shift the gaming market, and still think he isn’t the fucking problem
systemr123
Member
FunkMiller said:
“Exclusive great games won’t change the console market”.
Of course he’s the fucking problem, OP. You’ve heard it out of his own mouth.
“Exclusive great games won’t change the console market”.
Of course he’s the fucking problem, OP. You’ve heard it out of his own mouth.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
FunkMiller said:
“Exclusive great games won’t change the console market”.
Of course he’s the fucking problem, OP. You’ve heard it out of his own mouth.
Maybe not in the short term which is what Xbox really needs at the moment. If their goals are a lot further away then sure they can release a ton of great games that will help push systems.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Yeah, but long-term is the only way in this industry. As the saying goes, there is no shortcut.
MasterCornholio
Member
Oh I know but it doesn't mean they won't try shortcuts in the first place. Like buying big publishers for example. That's one way to get many exclusives in the short term. However there's limitations to that.
mcjmetroid
Member
I just wonder why they didn't buy good publishers.
Betheda and Activision... I mean it's great to have their back catalog but besides Call of Duty which isn't going to be exclusive, what does the future look like?
Is there anything making the fans jump up and down?
Both publishers were in decline before the purchase.
Betheda and Activision... I mean it's great to have their back catalog but besides Call of Duty which isn't going to be exclusive, what does the future look like?
Is there anything making the fans jump up and down?
Both publishers were in decline before the purchase.
Last edited:
Slicker than your average
Banned
This should be turned into a Phil spencer meme thread . The guy is only useful for laughing at now.
Edgelord79
Gold Member
Replacing Phil Spencer would likely not result in any substantial change unless the entire structure of Xbox division changes. Even then it will hurt before it gets better. Consider:
- the sheer amount of studios they have are difficult to manage.
- some of the studios were just purchased, they are not going to just divest then now.
- Is there someone better qualified to lead Xbox brand and also be the face of the platform waiting in the wings? Who else is going to wear the leather jacket ( although Sarah Bond looked reeeaaally good) in hers last year.
- They are trying to rapidly bolster their digital catalog, however they are finding out it doesn’t happen overnight. Phil wasn’t wrong when he stipulated the importance of Xbox One era with respect the this point. They are far behind and playing catch-up. That usually means you have to cut corners.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they do replace Phil Spenser any time soon, its because they want to eventually wind down the Xbox hardware business and just focus on their cloud gaming enterprise or publishing (though I don’t think it’s worth it). Or a lateral move for Phil making him head of the Xbox Cloud Services in order to “focus” on that.
- the sheer amount of studios they have are difficult to manage.
- some of the studios were just purchased, they are not going to just divest then now.
- Is there someone better qualified to lead Xbox brand and also be the face of the platform waiting in the wings? Who else is going to wear the leather jacket ( although Sarah Bond looked reeeaaally good) in hers last year.
- They are trying to rapidly bolster their digital catalog, however they are finding out it doesn’t happen overnight. Phil wasn’t wrong when he stipulated the importance of Xbox One era with respect the this point. They are far behind and playing catch-up. That usually means you have to cut corners.
It wouldn’t surprise me if they do replace Phil Spenser any time soon, its because they want to eventually wind down the Xbox hardware business and just focus on their cloud gaming enterprise or publishing (though I don’t think it’s worth it). Or a lateral move for Phil making him head of the Xbox Cloud Services in order to “focus” on that.
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
It's not just him, it's those inside MS that share that mentality. MS lost the ps4/x1 gen thinking that power was the issue so they went all in the Xbox series gen bragging about power and by Phil comment, it's obvious that they still haven't realised that players play games, not specs.I genuinely don’t believe how anyone can hear the head of a video games company say that making great games doesn’t sell more consoles or shift the gaming market, and still think he isn’t the fucking problem
They need to replace a lot of people and completely change their focus.
Son_of_Zardoz
Banned
The beacon for Ginuwines has been activated.
Nintendo became a product for adults after securing child demographic, Sony relatively the same, at least for a single demographic, Microsoft haven't secured any, most of what they did is a fan project for the fans, it's like a middle ground between niche and a solid demographic.
Last edited:
Ansphn
Member
Speaking of Xbox era. I have a feeling these "preemptive" moves like the Xbox era pre-damage control and random defense post like this on forums (there will be more all over the internet) are not coincidences. It's a strategic move straight from the top. Yes straight from Phil Spencer to his minions because he knows Starfield will not deliver (60-7.5 score) and Phil himself is really in the hot seat.
Last edited:
Cert.in.Death
Member
FunkMiller
Gold Member
I’m sure it’s not just him, but he’s been in charge of Xbox for a decade. If that culture exists there, it’s because he fostered it.
If the man in charge doesn’t think exclusive great games is the way to sell a console, then that stupid way of thinking will infect everyone else.
Ten years of a man who doesn’t get what sells consoles. Unbelievable.
The Stig
Member
the kinect was the beginning of the end
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Seeing a lot of Phil bashing lately due to unrest within the Xbox fanbase and the flop of Redfall seen by fan lads as an opportunity to dunk on him. The truth is that without Phil’s efforts over the past 10 years, there wouldn’t even be an Xbox Game Studios. That’s not to say he should be immune to criticism, but the amount and severity of it is overblown. Make no mistake, I am no stan for Phil. This is coming from someone who sees absolutely no point to owning an Xbox since the 360 and who finds PS+ Extra better than Game Pass. Regardless, the amount and kind of criticism being thrown his way is misguided.
Let’s start by looking at Microsoft as a company and their relationship with Xbox Game Studios, this is key because its ultimately what Phil is beholden to in terms of budget and strategy.
People on this board don’t seem to understand what kind of company Microsoft is and what their relationship with gaming is. Microsoft is fundamentally a middle man “platform” company first and foremost. They began this way and it’s their core competency. From Windows to Office, Azure, etc, they almost never make the best software (except for Excel). The reason they are so successful is because they provide a platform that does everything, even if they don’t do it exceptionally well. They are a tech company first, not a toy company like Nintendo, not an electronics or entertainment company like Sony.
It doesn’t matter to Microsoft as a whole if Xbox is in third place so long as they are profitable. And before someone comes in to assert their thesis on their last 10 income statements - it doesn’t matter how much money Xbox has lost Microsoft. Microsoft sees that as an acceptable cost of acquiring market share for future profits. They are so wildly successful that it means nothing, they’re fine with taking a hit for several years in order to build their moat. In particular right now Microsoft’s focus under Nadella is to become THE big player in the SaaS and PaaS markets. They understand services are the way to future profitability in their core markets, and they have taken this approach with the Xbox division too.
Now take a look at this, the history of Microsoft’s game studio:
Xbox Game Studios - Wikipedia
Xbox Games Studios has historically been a publisher, first and foremost, NOT a development studio. Look at the history and you’ll see how few games have been developed by already-in-house Microsoft teams. Their strategy has ALWAYS been to acquire existing development studios and fold their teams in under the Microsoft brand, acting as a publisher. Take a couple minutes to skim through that wiki, you will see each of their early big franchises like Flight Simulator, MechWarrior, Halo, and Fable were all buyouts of existing teams. With the exception of Forza, almost all of these dev teams are no longer operating under Microsoft (or at all) with much of the institutional knowledge gone elsewhere.
You’ll see that the existing dev teams in XGS today are almost all new acquisitions from the past few years, or have have enough turnover and change to consider themselves brand new teams. Furthermore, these acquisitions historically have been run as independent game shops and were Microsoft brand in name only. Traditionally this is how Microsoft operated their software company acquisitions. That is changing, as of very recently (COVID), and Matt Booty has been transparent about this in a podcast interview with Friends Per Second:
That change looks to be a stronger partnership between XGS and among its dev teams - much like the models that have been in place at Sony and Nintendo for a long time, and often cited as one of the biggest benefits to working with PlayStation from small dev teams - access to their resources and guidance. A change so recent will obviously take time to see the effects of.
Last, we look at Phil Spencer and Xbox division itself. Nadella became CEO in 2014, got rid of Mattrick and put Phil as head of Xbox. Considering the amount of damage already done, Phil’s first major task was to stop the bleeding and return to profitability. Here lies the big disconnect I see on this forum, in that “Phil has had 10 years to fix this and he has failed!” It’s quite the opposite, especially considering just how dominant Sony has been, and Nintendo since 2017.
What people also forget (or never knew to begin with) is that Phil was also responsible for Groove Music, Movies and TV, and Xbox Entertainment Studios. His focus was not solely on gaming! In fact, guess who Phil’s boss was - it was Terry Myerson, the VP of Operating Systems, who at the time was in charge of Windows, Windows Phone, and Xbox. In case you didn’t know, Windows was undergoing a huge transformation due to Nadella’s company-wide shift to cloud services and away from their traditional OS market. We also know what happened to Windows Phone. So in 2014 Xbox was neither the focus of Phil’s boss, nor the sole focus of Phil himself.
Still, within Phil’s first year as Xbox head, they acquired notable IPs like Gears and Minecraft (they bought Mojang entirely). I don’t need to explain how big of a win that was in terms of bringing money into Xbox. They also gave Gears to The Coalition, shut down Xbox Entertainment Studios, and had to contend with the unmitigated disaster Xbox One Phil immediately inherited. They also decided to reveal Ori and the Blind Forest, while it was an indie game it had the backing of Xbox as publisher which helped make the game a huge success (which it surpassed in its follow up, Will of the Wisps).
It took Microsoft until 2017 to consider Xbox an important part of their future strategy, likely due to the company’s pivot toward cloud computing and services with Game Pass. Finally Phil was promoted to executive VP and given a seat at the table, reporting directly to CEO Nadella and with Matt Booty from Mojang filling the role of head of XGS development. This is probably the most important part in this post, because it’s clear that until 2017 Xbox was not given clout by Microsoft. Given the company’s history and organizational structure, I am not surprised it's taking a long time to turn Xbox around. 2017 and beyond is the period where Phil actually has a real voice and pull within Microsoft as a whole, and what he should be judged for is overall direction of Xbox. Matt Booty is in the hotseat in terms of first-party output, which has been the biggest criticism of Xbox as a platform.
Still, if you look at what Xbox has done during this timeframe, you will see a lot of positives. Aside from the name, Xbox Series X is great hardware and has excellent features. Game Pass has been wildly successful. Although I don't like the precedent set due to the scope of industry consolidation, Microsoft's acquisitions of Zenimax and their pending Activision-Blizzard look to be huge positives for the Xbox brand. I haven't played it but from what I understand, critically, Halo Infinite's single player campaign was great and finally has the series back on track. Forza Horizon 5 was GOTY material. These are all signs that what Xbox is doing under Phil is working. Microsoft is happy with the results as Phil just got promoted to CEO of Xbox in 2022 and is now calling all of the shots for Microsoft's gaming segment with minimal oversight from Nadella.
I will close with some legitimate criticisms of Phil and speculation about why I suspect Phil is not solely to blame:
1. Xbox Series S resulted in a worse experience overall for gamers by holding back top performance of Series X games.
While it's not the best outcome for a gamer who wants the full next gen experience, it probably is the best move for Xbox and its existing userbase. Even with a bunch of great exclusives, it's going to be hard for Xbox's comeback against Nintendo and Sony arguably at their peak of success. The $500 Series X is a huge ask even of existing Xbox fans, and Phil seems fine making a sacrifice on the "full potential" not being realized in exchange for more people being able to experience games. Expanded audience over high end experience, it's as simple as that, and no surprise considering the Game Pass subscription model they are pushing.
2. Phil allowed Halo Infinite to be rushed and turn into a flop.
I couldn't agree more. Considering Phil as a gamer himself would be opposed to how this was handled, I have to think this was not his decision. Halo was Microsoft's trump card and a way to rekindle the spark for Xbox this generation, and Phil knew it had to be good. Considering all the tales of its troubled development, it sounds like 343 themselves were largely to blame. Considering how pivotal it was to the success of the console, I suspect the major delay was the middle ground Phil was able to negotiate. Microsoft as a whole needed it to get out the door and unfortunately even with the extra time that was bought, it wasn't enough to save the game.
3. It was dumb to allow Redfall to release in such a state.
Yeah with his immediate backpedal it's hard to see the case of why Phil decided to do this. Perhaps XGS is still allowing decisions to be made by the teams themselves, and maybe that is the wrong answer, in which Phil should still be criticized. But considering how little fun people are saying they have outside of the technical issues, I wonder if the game is just nothing special. In that case maybe Phil did the right thing in releasing when it did, in the state it did, to get it out of the way before summer. It's too soon to know if this was the right call but still disappointing how this turned out.
4. Phil's recent quote "We lost the biggest console generation there is to lose so when we build on Xbox, we want it to feel awesome. So if we focused on great games, that doesn't mean we'll win the console race".
Missing the context of which Phil said this, which was talking about how the PS4/XBO generation built up gamers' digital libraries and how even releasing excellent games would not necessarily drive Xbox console sales. I don't like this, and I disagree - history has shown a couple superstar games can sell a platform. Since 2017, Microsoft's strategy to sell their platform (really just Game Pass) has been top priority. They are not just trying to make excellent games, a big focus is on the experience with their platform. I see their point, look at the Switch. An enormous hit, and you've seen many people's reactions that if Nintendo's next console doesn't support the libraries they built up or have feature parity, they're going to "wait and see" rather than buy into Nintendo's ecosystem. Seems to be Microsoft as a whole's stance and the whole point of their Windows and Azure offerings.
5. Phil isn't doing a good job with Microsoft first party output.
I agree here, and I don't think this is something Phil personally excels at. He is very good at running the business as a whole and being gamer focused, he understands the market and the platform. He just isn't getting it done managing XGS the way Nintendo and Sony are able to. Matt Booty was put in this position in 2018, and Phil is responsible for that choice. At the same time I'm not sure if there has been enough time to see the fruits of this labor, and the way XGS is working with the dev teams has been changing too. Like Phil has stated many times, it's like they're building a dev studio from the ground up.
TL;DR Phil Spencer is not infallible but he is good for Microsoft, good for gamers, and good for the industry. Xbox's problems are deeply rooted in the way Microsoft operates its business, and how they viewed their gaming division until 2017. Xbox has been moving in a positive direction because of Phil's efforts and while he bares responsibility for the lackluster first-party output, the criticism being thrown at him might be better directed at Matt Booty and/or Microsoft as a whole.
All this is CAP! Stop bailing out Phil. Every issue here is something that Phil is supposed to stop from happening. He's been there 10 years fam.
ZoukGalaxy
Member
Now ask the same but replace by "it's Phil's fault"I actually went ahead and asked ChatGPT just that
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Cult of Personality™
Thick Thighs Save Lives
Gold Member
Okay, I don't know how Phil will recover from this spicy ChatGPT 4 take.Now ask the same but replace by "it's Phil's fault"
PharaoTutAnchAmun
Member
Seeing a lot of Phil bashing lately due to unrest within the Xbox fanbase and the flop of Redfall seen by fan lads as an opportunity to dunk on him. The truth is that without Phil’s efforts over the past 10 years, there wouldn’t even be an Xbox Game Studios. That’s not to say he should be immune to criticism, but the amount and severity of it is overblown. Make no mistake, I am no stan for Phil. This is coming from someone who sees absolutely no point to owning an Xbox since the 360 and who finds PS+ Extra better than Game Pass. Regardless, the amount and kind of criticism being thrown his way is misguided.
Let’s start by looking at Microsoft as a company and their relationship with Xbox Game Studios, this is key because its ultimately what Phil is beholden to in terms of budget and strategy.
People on this board don’t seem to understand what kind of company Microsoft is and what their relationship with gaming is. Microsoft is fundamentally a middle man “platform” company first and foremost. They began this way and it’s their core competency. From Windows to Office, Azure, etc, they almost never make the best software (except for Excel). The reason they are so successful is because they provide a platform that does everything, even if they don’t do it exceptionally well. They are a tech company first, not a toy company like Nintendo, not an electronics or entertainment company like Sony.
It doesn’t matter to Microsoft as a whole if Xbox is in third place so long as they are profitable. And before someone comes in to assert their thesis on their last 10 income statements - it doesn’t matter how much money Xbox has lost Microsoft. Microsoft sees that as an acceptable cost of acquiring market share for future profits. They are so wildly successful that it means nothing, they’re fine with taking a hit for several years in order to build their moat. In particular right now Microsoft’s focus under Nadella is to become THE big player in the SaaS and PaaS markets. They understand services are the way to future profitability in their core markets, and they have taken this approach with the Xbox division too.
Now take a look at this, the history of Microsoft’s game studio:
Xbox Game Studios - Wikipedia
Xbox Games Studios has historically been a publisher, first and foremost, NOT a development studio. Look at the history and you’ll see how few games have been developed by already-in-house Microsoft teams. Their strategy has ALWAYS been to acquire existing development studios and fold their teams in under the Microsoft brand, acting as a publisher. Take a couple minutes to skim through that wiki, you will see each of their early big franchises like Flight Simulator, MechWarrior, Halo, and Fable were all buyouts of existing teams. With the exception of Forza, almost all of these dev teams are no longer operating under Microsoft (or at all) with much of the institutional knowledge gone elsewhere.
You’ll see that the existing dev teams in XGS today are almost all new acquisitions from the past few years, or have have enough turnover and change to consider themselves brand new teams. Furthermore, these acquisitions historically have been run as independent game shops and were Microsoft brand in name only. Traditionally this is how Microsoft operated their software company acquisitions. That is changing, as of very recently (COVID), and Matt Booty has been transparent about this in a podcast interview with Friends Per Second:
That change looks to be a stronger partnership between XGS and among its dev teams - much like the models that have been in place at Sony and Nintendo for a long time, and often cited as one of the biggest benefits to working with PlayStation from small dev teams - access to their resources and guidance. A change so recent will obviously take time to see the effects of.
Last, we look at Phil Spencer and Xbox division itself. Nadella became CEO in 2014, got rid of Mattrick and put Phil as head of Xbox. Considering the amount of damage already done, Phil’s first major task was to stop the bleeding and return to profitability. Here lies the big disconnect I see on this forum, in that “Phil has had 10 years to fix this and he has failed!” It’s quite the opposite, especially considering just how dominant Sony has been, and Nintendo since 2017.
What people also forget (or never knew to begin with) is that Phil was also responsible for Groove Music, Movies and TV, and Xbox Entertainment Studios. His focus was not solely on gaming! In fact, guess who Phil’s boss was - it was Terry Myerson, the VP of Operating Systems, who at the time was in charge of Windows, Windows Phone, and Xbox. In case you didn’t know, Windows was undergoing a huge transformation due to Nadella’s company-wide shift to cloud services and away from their traditional OS market. We also know what happened to Windows Phone. So in 2014 Xbox was neither the focus of Phil’s boss, nor the sole focus of Phil himself.
Still, within Phil’s first year as Xbox head, they acquired notable IPs like Gears and Minecraft (they bought Mojang entirely). I don’t need to explain how big of a win that was in terms of bringing money into Xbox. They also gave Gears to The Coalition, shut down Xbox Entertainment Studios, and had to contend with the unmitigated disaster Xbox One Phil immediately inherited. They also decided to reveal Ori and the Blind Forest, while it was an indie game it had the backing of Xbox as publisher which helped make the game a huge success (which it surpassed in its follow up, Will of the Wisps).
It took Microsoft until 2017 to consider Xbox an important part of their future strategy, likely due to the company’s pivot toward cloud computing and services with Game Pass. Finally Phil was promoted to executive VP and given a seat at the table, reporting directly to CEO Nadella and with Matt Booty from Mojang filling the role of head of XGS development. This is probably the most important part in this post, because it’s clear that until 2017 Xbox was not given clout by Microsoft. Given the company’s history and organizational structure, I am not surprised it's taking a long time to turn Xbox around. 2017 and beyond is the period where Phil actually has a real voice and pull within Microsoft as a whole, and what he should be judged for is overall direction of Xbox. Matt Booty is in the hotseat in terms of first-party output, which has been the biggest criticism of Xbox as a platform.
Still, if you look at what Xbox has done during this timeframe, you will see a lot of positives. Aside from the name, Xbox Series X is great hardware and has excellent features. Game Pass has been wildly successful. Although I don't like the precedent set due to the scope of industry consolidation, Microsoft's acquisitions of Zenimax and their pending Activision-Blizzard look to be huge positives for the Xbox brand. I haven't played it but from what I understand, critically, Halo Infinite's single player campaign was great and finally has the series back on track. Forza Horizon 5 was GOTY material. These are all signs that what Xbox is doing under Phil is working. Microsoft is happy with the results as Phil just got promoted to CEO of Xbox in 2022 and is now calling all of the shots for Microsoft's gaming segment with minimal oversight from Nadella.
I will close with some legitimate criticisms of Phil and speculation about why I suspect Phil is not solely to blame:
1. Xbox Series S resulted in a worse experience overall for gamers by holding back top performance of Series X games.
While it's not the best outcome for a gamer who wants the full next gen experience, it probably is the best move for Xbox and its existing userbase. Even with a bunch of great exclusives, it's going to be hard for Xbox's comeback against Nintendo and Sony arguably at their peak of success. The $500 Series X is a huge ask even of existing Xbox fans, and Phil seems fine making a sacrifice on the "full potential" not being realized in exchange for more people being able to experience games. Expanded audience over high end experience, it's as simple as that, and no surprise considering the Game Pass subscription model they are pushing.
2. Phil allowed Halo Infinite to be rushed and turn into a flop.
I couldn't agree more. Considering Phil as a gamer himself would be opposed to how this was handled, I have to think this was not his decision. Halo was Microsoft's trump card and a way to rekindle the spark for Xbox this generation, and Phil knew it had to be good. Considering all the tales of its troubled development, it sounds like 343 themselves were largely to blame. Considering how pivotal it was to the success of the console, I suspect the major delay was the middle ground Phil was able to negotiate. Microsoft as a whole needed it to get out the door and unfortunately even with the extra time that was bought, it wasn't enough to save the game.
3. It was dumb to allow Redfall to release in such a state.
Yeah with his immediate backpedal it's hard to see the case of why Phil decided to do this. Perhaps XGS is still allowing decisions to be made by the teams themselves, and maybe that is the wrong answer, in which Phil should still be criticized. But considering how little fun people are saying they have outside of the technical issues, I wonder if the game is just nothing special. In that case maybe Phil did the right thing in releasing when it did, in the state it did, to get it out of the way before summer. It's too soon to know if this was the right call but still disappointing how this turned out.
4. Phil's recent quote "We lost the biggest console generation there is to lose so when we build on Xbox, we want it to feel awesome. So if we focused on great games, that doesn't mean we'll win the console race".
Missing the context of which Phil said this, which was talking about how the PS4/XBO generation built up gamers' digital libraries and how even releasing excellent games would not necessarily drive Xbox console sales. I don't like this, and I disagree - history has shown a couple superstar games can sell a platform. Since 2017, Microsoft's strategy to sell their platform (really just Game Pass) has been top priority. They are not just trying to make excellent games, a big focus is on the experience with their platform. I see their point, look at the Switch. An enormous hit, and you've seen many people's reactions that if Nintendo's next console doesn't support the libraries they built up or have feature parity, they're going to "wait and see" rather than buy into Nintendo's ecosystem. Seems to be Microsoft as a whole's stance and the whole point of their Windows and Azure offerings.
5. Phil isn't doing a good job with Microsoft first party output.
I agree here, and I don't think this is something Phil personally excels at. He is very good at running the business as a whole and being gamer focused, he understands the market and the platform. He just isn't getting it done managing XGS the way Nintendo and Sony are able to. Matt Booty was put in this position in 2018, and Phil is responsible for that choice. At the same time I'm not sure if there has been enough time to see the fruits of this labor, and the way XGS is working with the dev teams has been changing too. Like Phil has stated many times, it's like they're building a dev studio from the ground up.
TL;DR Phil Spencer is not infallible but he is good for Microsoft, good for gamers, and good for the industry. Xbox's problems are deeply rooted in the way Microsoft operates its business, and how they viewed their gaming division until 2017. Xbox has been moving in a positive direction because of Phil's efforts and while he bares responsibility for the lackluster first-party output, the criticism being thrown at him might be better directed at Matt Booty and/or Microsoft as a whole.
This essay is proudly presented to you by a member of the Phil Spencer defence force
Last edited:
ZoukGalaxy
Member
Thanks. OH.MY.TOAD. This is wild and pure GOLD. The bot is damn impressive and merciless.
The bot is so aware of what's wrong, Microsoft should hire ChaptGPT and replace Phil with it, then ask to the bot to stop sending flowers to people and medias and start the real console fight.
Last edited:
Fredrik
Member
lmao I’m blown away here, this could’ve 100% been a thread here, in 5 years this board (and others) will be 50% AI talking to each other.
Is it possible to make ChatGPT have a counter-arguement to that? A back and fourth discussion?
Radical Dreamer
Member
You have to be deranged to write this long shit defending guy from corporation lmao xD
Seeing a lot of Phil bashing lately due to unrest within the Xbox fanbase and the flop of Redfall seen by fan lads as an opportunity to dunk on him. The truth is that without Phil’s efforts over the past 10 years, there wouldn’t even be an Xbox Game Studios. That’s not to say he should be immune to criticism, but the amount and severity of it is overblown. Make no mistake, I am no stan for Phil. This is coming from someone who sees absolutely no point to owning an Xbox since the 360 and who finds PS+ Extra better than Game Pass. Regardless, the amount and kind of criticism being thrown his way is misguided.
Let’s start by looking at Microsoft as a company and their relationship with Xbox Game Studios, this is key because its ultimately what Phil is beholden to in terms of budget and strategy.
People on this board don’t seem to understand what kind of company Microsoft is and what their relationship with gaming is. Microsoft is fundamentally a middle man “platform” company first and foremost. They began this way and it’s their core competency. From Windows to Office, Azure, etc, they almost never make the best software (except for Excel). The reason they are so successful is because they provide a platform that does everything, even if they don’t do it exceptionally well. They are a tech company first, not a toy company like Nintendo, not an electronics or entertainment company like Sony.
It doesn’t matter to Microsoft as a whole if Xbox is in third place so long as they are profitable. And before someone comes in to assert their thesis on their last 10 income statements - it doesn’t matter how much money Xbox has lost Microsoft. Microsoft sees that as an acceptable cost of acquiring market share for future profits. They are so wildly successful that it means nothing, they’re fine with taking a hit for several years in order to build their moat. In particular right now Microsoft’s focus under Nadella is to become THE big player in the SaaS and PaaS markets. They understand services are the way to future profitability in their core markets, and they have taken this approach with the Xbox division too.
Now take a look at this, the history of Microsoft’s game studio:
Xbox Game Studios - Wikipedia
Xbox Games Studios has historically been a publisher, first and foremost, NOT a development studio. Look at the history and you’ll see how few games have been developed by already-in-house Microsoft teams. Their strategy has ALWAYS been to acquire existing development studios and fold their teams in under the Microsoft brand, acting as a publisher. Take a couple minutes to skim through that wiki, you will see each of their early big franchises like Flight Simulator, MechWarrior, Halo, and Fable were all buyouts of existing teams. With the exception of Forza, almost all of these dev teams are no longer operating under Microsoft (or at all) with much of the institutional knowledge gone elsewhere.
You’ll see that the existing dev teams in XGS today are almost all new acquisitions from the past few years, or have have enough turnover and change to consider themselves brand new teams. Furthermore, these acquisitions historically have been run as independent game shops and were Microsoft brand in name only. Traditionally this is how Microsoft operated their software company acquisitions. That is changing, as of very recently (COVID), and Matt Booty has been transparent about this in a podcast interview with Friends Per Second:
That change looks to be a stronger partnership between XGS and among its dev teams - much like the models that have been in place at Sony and Nintendo for a long time, and often cited as one of the biggest benefits to working with PlayStation from small dev teams - access to their resources and guidance. A change so recent will obviously take time to see the effects of.
Last, we look at Phil Spencer and Xbox division itself. Nadella became CEO in 2014, got rid of Mattrick and put Phil as head of Xbox. Considering the amount of damage already done, Phil’s first major task was to stop the bleeding and return to profitability. Here lies the big disconnect I see on this forum, in that “Phil has had 10 years to fix this and he has failed!” It’s quite the opposite, especially considering just how dominant Sony has been, and Nintendo since 2017.
What people also forget (or never knew to begin with) is that Phil was also responsible for Groove Music, Movies and TV, and Xbox Entertainment Studios. His focus was not solely on gaming! In fact, guess who Phil’s boss was - it was Terry Myerson, the VP of Operating Systems, who at the time was in charge of Windows, Windows Phone, and Xbox. In case you didn’t know, Windows was undergoing a huge transformation due to Nadella’s company-wide shift to cloud services and away from their traditional OS market. We also know what happened to Windows Phone. So in 2014 Xbox was neither the focus of Phil’s boss, nor the sole focus of Phil himself.
Still, within Phil’s first year as Xbox head, they acquired notable IPs like Gears and Minecraft (they bought Mojang entirely). I don’t need to explain how big of a win that was in terms of bringing money into Xbox. They also gave Gears to The Coalition, shut down Xbox Entertainment Studios, and had to contend with the unmitigated disaster Xbox One Phil immediately inherited. They also decided to reveal Ori and the Blind Forest, while it was an indie game it had the backing of Xbox as publisher which helped make the game a huge success (which it surpassed in its follow up, Will of the Wisps).
It took Microsoft until 2017 to consider Xbox an important part of their future strategy, likely due to the company’s pivot toward cloud computing and services with Game Pass. Finally Phil was promoted to executive VP and given a seat at the table, reporting directly to CEO Nadella and with Matt Booty from Mojang filling the role of head of XGS development. This is probably the most important part in this post, because it’s clear that until 2017 Xbox was not given clout by Microsoft. Given the company’s history and organizational structure, I am not surprised it's taking a long time to turn Xbox around. 2017 and beyond is the period where Phil actually has a real voice and pull within Microsoft as a whole, and what he should be judged for is overall direction of Xbox. Matt Booty is in the hotseat in terms of first-party output, which has been the biggest criticism of Xbox as a platform.
Still, if you look at what Xbox has done during this timeframe, you will see a lot of positives. Aside from the name, Xbox Series X is great hardware and has excellent features. Game Pass has been wildly successful. Although I don't like the precedent set due to the scope of industry consolidation, Microsoft's acquisitions of Zenimax and their pending Activision-Blizzard look to be huge positives for the Xbox brand. I haven't played it but from what I understand, critically, Halo Infinite's single player campaign was great and finally has the series back on track. Forza Horizon 5 was GOTY material. These are all signs that what Xbox is doing under Phil is working. Microsoft is happy with the results as Phil just got promoted to CEO of Xbox in 2022 and is now calling all of the shots for Microsoft's gaming segment with minimal oversight from Nadella.
I will close with some legitimate criticisms of Phil and speculation about why I suspect Phil is not solely to blame:
1. Xbox Series S resulted in a worse experience overall for gamers by holding back top performance of Series X games.
While it's not the best outcome for a gamer who wants the full next gen experience, it probably is the best move for Xbox and its existing userbase. Even with a bunch of great exclusives, it's going to be hard for Xbox's comeback against Nintendo and Sony arguably at their peak of success. The $500 Series X is a huge ask even of existing Xbox fans, and Phil seems fine making a sacrifice on the "full potential" not being realized in exchange for more people being able to experience games. Expanded audience over high end experience, it's as simple as that, and no surprise considering the Game Pass subscription model they are pushing.
2. Phil allowed Halo Infinite to be rushed and turn into a flop.
I couldn't agree more. Considering Phil as a gamer himself would be opposed to how this was handled, I have to think this was not his decision. Halo was Microsoft's trump card and a way to rekindle the spark for Xbox this generation, and Phil knew it had to be good. Considering all the tales of its troubled development, it sounds like 343 themselves were largely to blame. Considering how pivotal it was to the success of the console, I suspect the major delay was the middle ground Phil was able to negotiate. Microsoft as a whole needed it to get out the door and unfortunately even with the extra time that was bought, it wasn't enough to save the game.
3. It was dumb to allow Redfall to release in such a state.
Yeah with his immediate backpedal it's hard to see the case of why Phil decided to do this. Perhaps XGS is still allowing decisions to be made by the teams themselves, and maybe that is the wrong answer, in which Phil should still be criticized. But considering how little fun people are saying they have outside of the technical issues, I wonder if the game is just nothing special. In that case maybe Phil did the right thing in releasing when it did, in the state it did, to get it out of the way before summer. It's too soon to know if this was the right call but still disappointing how this turned out.
4. Phil's recent quote "We lost the biggest console generation there is to lose so when we build on Xbox, we want it to feel awesome. So if we focused on great games, that doesn't mean we'll win the console race".
Missing the context of which Phil said this, which was talking about how the PS4/XBO generation built up gamers' digital libraries and how even releasing excellent games would not necessarily drive Xbox console sales. I don't like this, and I disagree - history has shown a couple superstar games can sell a platform. Since 2017, Microsoft's strategy to sell their platform (really just Game Pass) has been top priority. They are not just trying to make excellent games, a big focus is on the experience with their platform. I see their point, look at the Switch. An enormous hit, and you've seen many people's reactions that if Nintendo's next console doesn't support the libraries they built up or have feature parity, they're going to "wait and see" rather than buy into Nintendo's ecosystem. Seems to be Microsoft as a whole's stance and the whole point of their Windows and Azure offerings.
5. Phil isn't doing a good job with Microsoft first party output.
I agree here, and I don't think this is something Phil personally excels at. He is very good at running the business as a whole and being gamer focused, he understands the market and the platform. He just isn't getting it done managing XGS the way Nintendo and Sony are able to. Matt Booty was put in this position in 2018, and Phil is responsible for that choice. At the same time I'm not sure if there has been enough time to see the fruits of this labor, and the way XGS is working with the dev teams has been changing too. Like Phil has stated many times, it's like they're building a dev studio from the ground up.
TL;DR Phil Spencer is not infallible but he is good for Microsoft, good for gamers, and good for the industry. Xbox's problems are deeply rooted in the way Microsoft operates its business, and how they viewed their gaming division until 2017. Xbox has been moving in a positive direction because of Phil's efforts and while he bares responsibility for the lackluster first-party output, the criticism being thrown at him might be better directed at Matt Booty and/or Microsoft as a whole.
It's easy to get colored especially with a widely spread narrative, it drives nothing more than burning calories, Redfall is not the result of Microsoft doing their resolve from Sonys undoing, this is beyond stupidity to think this way.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Xbox core are like goldfish.
After one press conference, they forget 6 years of misteps.
After one press conference, they forget 6 years of misteps.
Chatgpt is a Nintendo fanboy, he's always favoring Nintendo, you can't take his words seriously.
Last Hearth
Member
The problem with the X Box is the XBox. It wasn't needed, it's basically just a PS clone that doesn't play some of the PS games. It has no reason for existence other than MS wanting to be in gaming, which they should have just bought Sony instead if that is what they want.
digoutyoursoul
Member
Each is own I guess , that showcase wasn’t great imo. I get the impression some, particularly the more outspoken in that community, are very keen to push strongly anything seemingly remotely positive to the fullest.
It really feels like a cult with this guy particularly on twitter where the influencers control the narrative
The way Ubisoft showed Star Wars yesterday, I wanted to see that kind of showing for Hellblade 2 and Fable and I know Starfield is anticipated by many, I don’t see anything there that’s better in terms of style, combat, facial capture that others haven’t made before it.
I’m waiting for that one game on Series X that really captures the imagination of a next generation game and I’ve yet to see it in full.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
Or just been a publisher. You are right though... I won't single out Xbox, but would instead say there is just no reason for both a Playstation and Xbox to exist. They are too similar. And theory reason the Xbox has survived for as long as it has, is because its being backed by MS.
On the flip side though, you also have to appreciate that there are two of them... can you imagine what the industry would have been if it was only one? The PS5 probably ud cost %1000. Xbox would be an always-online console and you won't be able to share your games. They probably would have required every publisher to put their game on GP and gmepass would probably be a $30/month subscription.
Jibran#one
Member
That is 1 big wall of txt.
Phil , bill ,or my mom can run Xbox
Just release 1 big AAA game every 3 month and ur golden.
Why does switch sell so well , they don't have cod , they don't have good FIFA's they don't get good multiplatform ports , it sells because it has amazing games like botw , totk, odyssy and many more.
Phil , bill ,or my mom can run Xbox
Just release 1 big AAA game every 3 month and ur golden.
Why does switch sell so well , they don't have cod , they don't have good FIFA's they don't get good multiplatform ports , it sells because it has amazing games like botw , totk, odyssy and many more.
Everyone has their own opinion and that's fine. Mine is the opposite of yours.
I haven't seen anything in this generation as impressive as Starfield with all of its connected systems and simulations. Few moments in my 35+ years as a gamer have impressed me more. However, I should wait for the final release to be able to evaluate better.
About the presentation of the other games, I think they will show deep dives in their respectives Developers Direct, which I Imagine we will see in 2024.
Fatal Chuck Yeager
Member
The trajectory of PlayStation would be entirely different if there wasn't an Xbox 2001 or an Xbox 360. Radically so.
yurinka
Member
Yes, he's part of the problem.
Sure, maybe it was the PR & marketing team the ones with the idea of announcing games that were going to be released like 5 or 7 years later, but he approved it and didn't fire Aaron Clownberg.
Sure, maybe their studios are managed like shit. But he didn't fire their head of studios. Same goes with the producers of the games or heads of each studios.
Sure, maybe it was the PR & marketing team the ones with the idea of announcing games that were going to be released like 5 or 7 years later, but he approved it and didn't fire Aaron Clownberg.
Sure, maybe their studios are managed like shit. But he didn't fire their head of studios. Same goes with the producers of the games or heads of each studios.
digoutyoursoul
Member
I’ll give it a try when it comes out, like you I have been gaming for a substantial time. I don’t feel the hype for it and I’m someone who loves sci fi./new worlds /space travel stuff. Truth to be told I’m not truly engrossed with Bethesda in general.
Given the timeframe of the other games being announced and what we have seen, I am disappointed. Not to mention last year was weak in big games offerings from Xbox and this years big offerings the majority of is what was supposed to be last year plus Forza . I was hoping there would be something else and i certainly foolishly misjudged how ready Hellblade 2 is as I thought that might of been out late this year.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
nowhat
Member
I mean, he has a T-shirt and also a video overlay! Gotta believe him!
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked