• 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.

Xbox’s Spencer Sees Progress Toward Activision Deal Approval

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
Patiently waiting so that this can finalize and a couple of years later the main AAA Cod is exclusive. I actually have no issue with it being multiplatform but it's just rediculous that people think they bought Activision for this kind of money to leave things the same.
1 + 1 = 2
 

Leyasu

Banned
Fewer exclusives. lmao. Rich coming from a man who paid $8 billion to make Starfield exclusive.

GIF by MOODMAN


We’ll just pretend that all of those other I.Ps don’t exist shall we.
 
I'd love to see this deal get done and see what happens... but also, I'd like to see it fall thru and see what their fall back plan would be. Invest in creation of new studios? Look at purchasing small/medium publishers instead?
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
He meant fewer Xbox console exclusives, as in also available on PC, Xcloud, and sometimes mobile. This has nothing to do with Nintendo or Sony.
Fewer console exclusives, as in also available on PC, xcloud etc.

So many folks are misreading because of the cut quote in the OP, doesn't look like OP has any interest in fixing it.
No, this was in context to Call of Duty and playstation vs xbox owners not being able to play together hence cross-console play and fewer exclusives. This man says one thing and does another.

Spencer, who has pledged to make Call of Duty available for the rival Sony PlayStation at least for some period of time, said the idea of games made exclusively for one device “is something we’re just going to see less and less of.”

“Maybe you happen in your household to buy an Xbox and I buy a PlayStation and our kids want to play together and they can't because we bought the wrong piece of plastic to plug into our television,” he said. “We really love to be able to bring more players in reducing friction, making people feel safe, secure when they're playing, allowing them to find their friends, play with their friends, regardless of what device — I think in the long run that is good for this industry. And maybe in the short run, there's some people in some companies that don’t love it. But I think as we get over the hump and see where this industry can continue to grow, it proves out to be true.”
 

Topher

Gold Member
Here is the text of the article:

Microsoft Corp.’s Phil Spencer, chief executive officer of gaming, said he’s encouraged by the progress made in discussions with regulators examining the software giant’s almost $70 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc.

“I feel good about the progress that we've been making, but I go into the process supportive of people who maybe aren't as close to the gaming industry asking good, hard questions about ‘what is our intent? What does this mean? If you play it out over five years, is this constricting a market? Is it growing a market?” Spencer said in an interview with Emily Chang for “Bloomberg Studio 1.0” to be broadcast at 9 p.m. New York time Wednesday.

“I've never done a 70 billion-dollar deal, so I don't know what my confidence means,” Spencer said. “I will say the discussions we've been having seem positive.”

If Microsoft gets approval to acquire the maker of video games like Call of Duty and Candy Crush, it will inherit the legacy of allegations that Activision underpaid women and allowed sexism and harassment to go unpunished. Activision has said it is trying to address the issues and Spencer has said Microsoft examined Activision’s plans to clean up its act before agreeing to the deal in January.

“I believe they're committed to that,” Spencer said during the interview. “When I look at the work that they're doing now — there's always more that can be done — but I believe from the studio leaders there that I know very well, some of them former Xbox members, that they're committed to this journey. And I applaud that regardless of the deal.”

With some Activision employees forming a union, Microsoft said in June that it will work with labor groups when presented with a specific union proposal. Spencer noted he’s never had that experience before but thought it important to make such a statement.

“I've never run an organization that has unions in it, but what I can say in working through this is we recognize workers' needs to feel safe and heard and compensated fairly in order to do great work,” he said. “We definitely see a need to support the workers in the outcomes that they want to have.”

Spencer, who has pledged to make Call of Duty available for the rival Sony PlayStation at least for some period of time, said the idea of games made exclusively for one device “is something we’re just going to see less and less of.”

“Maybe you happen in your household to buy an Xbox and I buy a PlayStation and our kids want to play together and they can't because we bought the wrong piece of plastic to plug into our television,” he said. “We really love to be able to bring more players in reducing friction, making people feel safe, secure when they're playing, allowing them to find their friends, play with their friends, regardless of what device — I think in the long run that is good for this industry. And maybe in the short run, there's some people in some companies that don’t love it. But I think as we get over the hump and see where this industry can continue to grow, it proves out to be true.”

While Microsoft is focused on completing the Activision acquisition, Spencer said he remains on the hunt for more content whether by investing in new games, partnerships or further deals. Xbox wants to add content and creators in the regions of the globe where it’s less strong.

“I'm always thinking about things that add to our capability,” he said. “Even though we've worked on our geographic expansion, I'd still say we have too many of our creators in places that are our traditional markets.”

Not sure how to interpret what Spencer is saying about exclusivity here. It isn't very clear. I could read it as saying "one device" meaning as it will be on other devices than a console, but that is the case right now. He committed to devices other than console a long time ago. In the very next paragraph, he's talking about playing on Xbox and PlayStation in the very next paragraph. You could interpret this a number of ways.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Not sure how to interpret what Spencer is saying about exclusivity here. It isn't very clear. I could read it as saying "one device" meaning as it will be on other devices than a console, but that is the case right now. He committed to devices other than console a long time ago. In the very next paragraph, he's talking about playing on Xbox and PlayStation in the very next paragraph. You could interpret this a number of ways.

To me it reads like 2 different sentences strung together. The first part is talking about less console exclusives and second is broader cross play so people from all devices can play in the same eco system.
 

Topher

Gold Member
To me it reads like 2 different sentences strung together. The first part is talking about less console exclusives and second is broader cross play so people from all devices can play in the same eco system.

Perhaps, but it isn't clear. For the record, however, he never says "console exclusives" so what is in the OP that needs fixing?
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Perhaps, but it isn't clear. For the record, however, he never says "console exclusives" so what is in the OP that needs fixing?

That's what I got from his quotes about having everyone being able to play without friction, xcloud that can be accessed in the most places, including straight up native TV apps.

Anyway, to the point in the OP, he says games exclusive to one device, which there's no other way to interpret than "console exclusive", to me. What else is exclusive to one device, only marquee console exclusive games. He did not say a blanket statement on lesser exclusives overall.
 

drganon

Member
Simple for most, but not for everyone clearly lol.

The saltiness is palatable.

Sony acquires Insomniac... Yay.

Sony acquires BluePoint... Yay hurah!

Sony acquires HouseMarque... Yay hurah! woot!

Sony acquires Bungie... Yay hurah! woot woot!

Microsoft acquires Activision... Boo, this is bad all around :pie_eyeroll:
There's a pretty big fucking difference between buying housemarque and Activision.
 
Last edited:

Infamy v1

Member
Here is the text of the article:



Not sure how to interpret what Spencer is saying about exclusivity here. It isn't very clear. I could read it as saying "one device" meaning as it will be on other devices than a console, but that is the case right now. He committed to devices other than console a long time ago. In the very next paragraph, he's talking about playing on Xbox and PlayStation in the very next paragraph. You could interpret this a number of ways.

It's almost as if Phil Spencer wants Game Pass...stay with me here...available on every device under the sun...don't lose me yet...and would love to have Game Pass on PlayStation which...stay with me...Sony would never allow as it would cripple them from the inside out.

Their goal is to get you into their ecosystem, that's the only way to interpret anything. Destiny, Call of Duty and Minecraft are outliers.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Not sure if this is a paraphrasing of a direct quote or the article writer interpreting something, but Phil is talking about making CoD available on PS consoles for "some time" only.

Not in perpetuity. Looks like he's also counting down the year(s) when the marketing deals expire.




Fa78d7iWAAA4RTp
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Banned
It's almost as if Phil Spencer wants Game Pass...stay with me here...available on every device under the sun...don't lose me yet...and would love to have Game Pass on PlayStation which...stay with me...Sony would never allow as it would cripple them from the inside out.

Their goal is to get you into their ecosystem, that's the only way to interpret anything. Destiny, Call of Duty and Minecraft are outliers.


I don’t think for one second that they want gamepass on PlayStation. Because that would mean that all of their games would have to be native PlayStation apps and that they would have to be 100% multi platform.

Which in turn would kill their hardware and hand Sony 30% of their console software revenue. But, when Xbox is gone and the PlayStation reigns supreme, what would stop Sony from demanding 40% commission etc.

It ain’t happening
 
Last edited:
Honestly the garbage that comes out of his mouth sometimes.

Buys up large amount of 3rd parties to make then exclusive then talks about making things multiplat..please Phil.
Phil Spencer: Almost all our games coming out in the foreseeable future will be available across Xbox consoles, PC, cloud streaming, and sometimes mobile. Also, all multiplatform games with online features should offer cross-play functionality.

You: He's the devil
 

Topher

Gold Member
That's what I got from his quotes about having everyone being able to play without friction, xcloud that can be accessed in the most places, including straight up native TV apps.

Anyway, to the point in the OP, he says games exclusive to one device, which there's no other way to interpret than "console exclusive", to me. What else is exclusive to one device, only marquee console exclusive games. He did not say a blanket statement on lesser exclusives overall.

That are a number of ways to interpret what he said. Probably better to get the transcript from the interview. Can't say for certain based on these quotes.

It's almost as if Phil Spencer wants Game Pass...stay with me here...available on every device under the sun...don't lose me yet...and would love to have Game Pass on PlayStation which...stay with me...Sony would never allow as it would cripple them from the inside out.

Their goal is to get you into their ecosystem, that's the only way to interpret anything. Destiny, Call of Duty and Minecraft are outliers.

Jonah Hill Ok GIF


I don’t think for one second that they want gamepass on PlayStation. Because that would mean that all of their games would have to be native PlayStation apps and that they would have to be 100% multi platform.

Which in turn would kill their hardware and hand Sony 30% of their console software revenue. But, when Xbox is gone and the PlayStation reigns supreme, what would stop Sony from demanding 40% commission etc.

It ain’t happening

I agree. Microsoft doesn't want Game Pass on any platform simply because of the fact that the other platforms would require a piece of the pie. And every game on the service would want more money as well. Microsoft is going to do all that for $15 a month?
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
Phil is talking about games only being exclusive to one type of device, like console, but Xbox have not only been on one type of device for some time.

However its not in Microsofts interests to put games on playstation apart from cases like cod + Minecraft, unless playstation allows gamepass which is not happening.
 

yurinka

Member
He says expects that console games are something "we're just going to see less and less of" in the future,
I think he's talking about their on, because the console market has been growing for years and it's expected to continue growing, and the number of games released on console also keeps growing. It's bigger that it has ever been.

I agree. Microsoft doesn't want Game Pass on any platform simply because of the fact that the other platforms would require a piece of the pie. And every game on the service would want more money as well. Microsoft is going to do all that for $15 a month?
Phil previously said he'd like to have Gamepass in the other consoles (in the Epic trial we saw that obviously he'd like to do it without paying anything to the platform holders). Sony and Nintendo obviously would want that everything published on their platform would pay them the revenue cut.

And while Sony and Nintendo would welcome future Minecraft, Call of Duty, Diablo, Overwatch and so on games on their platfoms, I don't think they'll allow any big rival game sub there.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
Phil is talking about games only being exclusive to one type of device, like console, but Xbox have not only been on one type of device for some time.

However its not in Microsofts interests to put games on playstation apart from cases like cod + Minecraft, unless playstation allows gamepass which is not happening.

Yeah, the fact that he is talking about not being on "one device" is what is confusing to me. I suspect there is more to what he said. The "one device" part isn't even in the quote from Spencer. Bloomberg shenanigans, perhaps?
 

Infamy v1

Member
I don’t think for one second that they want gamepass on PlayStation. Because that would mean that all of their games would have to be native PlayStation apps and that they would have to be 100% multi platform.

Which in turn would kill their hardware and hand Sony 30% of their console software revenue. But, when Xbox is gone and the PlayStation reigns supreme, what would stop Sony from demanding 40% commission etc.

It ain’t happening

You took a long time to edit this, but your post is laughably incorrect.

Phil Spencer said he was "open to discussions" for Xbox Game Pass on PlayStation and Switch. Unless Phil is a liar, which seems to be the prevalent mindset from certain users.

Secondly, and ultimately...

What?

What kind of backwards ass future are you imagining? CoD alone proves your thinking incorrect; look how hard Sony is fighting to keep CoD on PlayStation because it's their biggest money maker. Even if Microsoft doesn't take CoD off PlayStation (since Game Pass is on there they are technically correct about it being on PlayStation), Sony will lose a metric fuck ton of money for people subscribing to Game Pass to play it over giving Sony the money instead. And that's one game out of 500+ which Microsoft will use to entice people to get into and stay in their ecosystem, and they're not looking to slow down acquisitions.

But yeah, what would really happen according to an armchair analyst is that Xbox would implode and cease to exist and Sony would "reign supreme." 🤭
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
Phil previously said he'd like to have Gamepass in the other consoles (in the Epic trial we saw that obviously he'd like to do it without paying anything to the platform holders). Sony and Nintendo obviously would want that everything published on their platform would pay them the revenue cut.

And while Sony and Nintendo would welcome future Minecraft, Call of Duty, Diablo, Overwatch and so on games on their platfoms, I don't think they'll allow any big rival game sub there.

Spencer was talking about xCloud on other consoles and he only said "haven't given up". Elsewhere he has said he was "open to discussions" as pointed out in this thread, but that discussions begins and ends with how much money does the other platform get from that revenue stream.

You took a long time to edit this, but your post is laughably incorrect.

Phil Spencer said he was "open to discussions" for Xbox Game Pass on PlayStation and Switch. Unless Phil is a liar, which seems to be the prevalent mindset from certain users.

Secondly, and ultimately...

What?

What kind of backwards ass future are you imagining? CoD alone proves your thinking incorrect; look how hard Sony is fighting to keep CoD on PlayStation because it's their biggest money maker. Even if Microsoft doesn't take CoD off PlayStation (since Game Pass is on there they are technically correct about it being on PlayStation), Sony will lose a metric fuck ton of money for people subscribing to Game Pass to play it over giving Sony the money instead. And that's one game out of 500+ which Microsoft will use to entice people to get into and stay in their ecosystem, and they're not looking to slow down acquisitions.

But yeah, what would really happen according to an armchair analyst is that Xbox would implode and cease to exist and Sony would "reign supreme." 🤭

You really should read his post again, because you are not getting what he is saying. He is talking about Game Pass on PlayStation and all the games that are on Game Pass also being on PlayStation. Games like Gears, Halo, Forza. I mean how else would this silly idea work? Microsoft is going to rent out PlayStation games to PlayStation owners on PlayStation? That's why none of this Game Pass on PlayStation stuff makes any sense.

Phil Spencer isn't necessarily lying, but he isn't being straight about this either.

Not sure if this is a paraphrasing of a direct quote or the article writer interpreting something, but Phil is talking about making CoD available on PS consoles for "some time" only.

Unless he said something new in the interview, which would be remarkable considering the AB deal is still under review then the author is simply taking some liberties with what has been said in the past.
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Banned
You took a long time to edit this, but your post is laughably incorrect.

Phil Spencer said he was "open to discussions" for Xbox Game Pass on PlayStation and Switch. Unless Phil is a liar, which seems to be the prevalent mindset from certain users.

Secondly, and ultimately...

What?

What kind of backwards ass future are you imagining? CoD alone proves your thinking incorrect; look how hard Sony is fighting to keep CoD on PlayStation because it's their biggest money maker. Even if Microsoft doesn't take CoD off PlayStation (since Game Pass is on there they are technically correct about it being on PlayStation), Sony will lose a metric fuck ton of money for people subscribing to Game Pass to play it over giving Sony the money instead. And that's one game out of 500+ which Microsoft will use to entice people to get into and stay in their ecosystem, and they're not looking to slow down acquisitions.

But yeah, what would really happen according to an armchair analyst is that Xbox would implode and cease to exist and Sony would "reign supreme." 🤭
Why so angry?? Lol

Yeah Phil is talking shit. He is saying what he thinks people want to hear, but has most probably done nothing.

Backwards ass future lol. One or two games staying multi means nothing. But putting gamepass on PlayStation would mean that they would have to go full multi. Which would kill Xbox and hand Sony a monopoly. With all that comes with it. But yeah Sony would let gamepass go on their for free and would also not take any royalties from other sales. Ok.

But yeah, reading that post, I am obviously here trying to explain colours to a blind man. Lol
 

Infamy v1

Member
Spencer was talking about xCloud on other consoles and he only said "haven't given up". Elsewhere he has said he was "open to discussions" as pointed out in this thread, but that discussions begins and ends with how much money does the other platform get from that revenue stream.



You really should read his post again, because you are not getting what he is saying. He is talking about Game Pass on PlayStation and all the games that are on Game Pass also being on PlayStation. Games like Gears, Halo, Forza. I mean how else would this silly idea work? Microsoft is going to rent out PlayStation games to PlayStation owners on PlayStation? That's why none of this Game Pass on PlayStation stuff makes any sense.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The amount of money Microsoft would make if Game Pass was accessible to a 140+ million userbase with games like Elder Scrolls 6, Starfield, CoD, Diablo, Crash etc would be astronomical. Adding in XGS games would just be icing on the cake and I don't think MS would care on the theoretical timeline that Sony actually allowed this (they won't).

Microsoft is okay with their 1P titles being on mobile and PC, because you're in their ecosystem. The Xbox console ain't going anywhere, and Phil has tripled-down on how console will always be important to their strategy.

All this is irrelevant because Sony will never allow it and Microsoft doesn't need them, anyway.
 

plip.plop

Member
I think he is serious about the comment on not making most of the Activision games exclusive to include COD to MS gamers. They are playing the long game here. The reason behind that is to set a precedence that will make acquisitions easier in the future and also get ROI quicker. Once MS gets those other companies they wish to acquire, then they will be able to put their real plan into action.
 

Infamy v1

Member
Why so angry?? Lol

Wait, that's anger to you? 😂

Yeah Phil is talking shit. He is saying what he thinks people want to hear, but has most probably done nothing.

PR is PR, but are you saying he is lying and if Sony called him for his bluff (which they should've done already according to you since it's a no brainer, amirite), he would be sweating balls?
Backwards ass future lol. One or two games staying multi means nothing. But putting gamepass on PlayStation would mean that they would have to go full multi. Which would kill Xbox and hand Sony a monopoly. With all that comes with it. But yeah Sony would let gamepass go on their for free and would also not take any royalties from other sales. Ok.

But yeah, reading that post, I am obviously here trying to explain colours to a blind man. Lol

Yeah, I don't think you have any idea about what you're talking about here. Reads like fanfiction from someone who took a business class in community College.

None of this matters anyway, Phil knows he doesn't need Sony in this regard and Sony wouldn't want to cripple themselves, so it'll never happen.
 

Topher

Gold Member
I'm not sure what you're saying here. The amount of money Microsoft would make if Game Pass was accessible to a 140+ million userbase with games like Elder Scrolls 6, Starfield, CoD, Diablo, Crash etc would be astronomical. Adding in XGS games would just be icing on the cake and I don't think MS would care on the theoretical timeline that Sony actually allowed this (they won't).

Microsoft is okay with their 1P titles being on mobile and PC, because you're in their ecosystem. The Xbox console ain't going anywhere, and Phil has tripled-down on how console will always be important to their strategy.

All this is irrelevant because Sony will never allow it and Microsoft doesn't need them, anyway.

So now we are talking about a PlayStation with all the first party Xbox games available on it for $15 a month. Nah.....I'm 100% with Leyasu Leyasu . That would be a disaster for Xbox.

Yes, it is irrelevant. Sony isn't going to allow it and neither is Microsoft. The entire premise is absurd, frankly.
 

ahtlas7

Member
Always makes me laugh reading about the US and Unions but seeing the way the UK public are getting twisted over the trains maybe I shouldn’t be laughing at all.
don’t forget your dock workers. Your largest port is on an 7 day strike.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
Yeah, the fact that he is talking about not being on "one device" is what is confusing to me. I suspect there is more to what he said. The "one device" part isn't even in the quote from Spencer. Bloomberg shenanigans, perhaps?
The article said that Spencer said one device, i mean I dont see the confusion, he simply saying its not like the PS2 days, you can play the same games on PC,Tv, phone, chromebook, any other device with appropriate browser and console.
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Banned
Wait, that's anger to you? 😂



PR is PR, but are you saying he is lying and if Sony called him for his bluff (which they should've done already according to you since it's a no brainer, amirite), he would be sweating balls?


Yeah, I don't think you have any idea about what you're talking about here. Reads like fanfiction from someone who took a business class in community College.

None of this matters anyway, Phil knows he doesn't need Sony in this regard and Sony wouldn't want to cripple themselves, so it'll never happen.
holy moly.

What happens to xbox hardware when every single microsoft game goes on Playstation? That's right, it's dead! They couldn't just put some half-arsed streaming gamepass on Playstation, it would have to be native apps. Full multiplatform. Meaning Sony would have a monopoly by default. How are you not seeing this? Then Microsoft would have to give Sony 30% of everything. Which could easily increase when they are Sonys mercy once xbox has been extinguished.

Pretending that you have done business classes in a better establishment than a community college donesn't mean shit when what you are saying is nonsense.

Like Topher Topher said, the whole premise is absurd.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
The article said that Spencer said one device, i mean I dont see the confusion, he simply saying its not like the PS2 days, you can play the same games on PC,Tv, phone, chromebook, any other device with appropriate browser and console.

No, I mean it is confusing because, as you said, MS hasn't been on "one device" in a long time and these were forward looking statements. The article seems to be summarizing a lot of what was said outside of direct quotes. And.....I just don't trust Bloomberg.
 
I'd love to see this deal get done and see what happens... but also, I'd like to see it fall thru and see what their fall back plan would be. Invest in creation of new studios? Look at purchasing small/medium publishers instead?

Microsoft still has plenty of studios from what was purchased before, they don't really lose anything if the Activision deal goes through they have a ton of talented staff already.

Yeah, the fact that he is talking about not being on "one device" is what is confusing to me. I suspect there is more to what he said. The "one device" part isn't even in the quote from Spencer. Bloomberg shenanigans, perhaps?

Microsoft has been saying this since smartglass, it's always been "every device that's not the competition" since day 1. Unless it's something like Minecraft.
 
It's almost as if Phil Spencer wants Game Pass...stay with me here...available on every device under the sun...don't lose me yet...and would love to have Game Pass on PlayStation which...stay with me...Sony would never allow as it would cripple them from the inside out.

Their goal is to get you into their ecosystem, that's the only way to interpret anything. Destiny, Call of Duty and Minecraft are outliers.
Sony would welcome it if it included their own games only like EA Play and the Ubisoft Plus.

Coincidently what has MS being doing? Investing so that Gamepass will be less and less reliant on third party content...

All these MS recent investment were made way to late to be about this gen or the Xbox Series, they are about trying to make Gamepass more viable in the future.
 
Last edited:

RoadHazard

Gold Member
So why did you immediately make the most anticipated upcoming Bethesda releases Xbox (and PC) exclusive?

This guy man, constantly taking the talk but not walking the walk.
 
Top Bottom