Listening to gamers and offering exclusive games is the future of XONE - Phil Spencer

Whitechocolatekrispies said:
Too little too late.

Their console is already too compromised from their earlier miss-direction. Underpowered (ESRAM etc), over gimmicked (mandatory Kinect that ... no one uses) and too expensive. In terms of hardware, they've lost and will never recover. PS4 is more powerful and cheaper, games will always do more and look better.

But hardware isn't everything. Games also help, however last time I checked Microsoft have buried, lost and crippled most of their great first party studios. So it's all about third party exclusivity, only that's off to a terrible start. Smaller user base, harder development and a track record already off to a bad start. Oh and let's not forget a lot of high profile developers can't actually buy their console in their home country.

So exclusives. I can't see EA, Take Two and Ubisoft agreeing to limit the sale of a big AAA title to less than half the console user-base. Me thinks we will just see shitty promo deals like 'DLC map packs first' etc. Nothing of substance.
Click to expand...

They don't need the internal studios to make sequels to their past IPs. Killer Instinct has shown that it's possible to get good results long after the original IP creator (effectively) dies. They need to do a lot more of that really.
 
I would be more of a fan of Xbox if they had some strong first party developers or franchises that I liked. They are no where near the league of Nintendo or Sony when it comes to that in my opinion.

Also I understand that Xbox One is most important to them in terms of gaming but I wish they didn't treat PC gaming like an ugly step child.
 
RE_Player said:
I would be more of a fan of Xbox if they had some strong first party developers or franchises that I liked. They are no where near the league of Nintendo or Sony when it comes to that in my opinion.

Also I understand that Xbox One is most important to them in terms of gaming but I wish they didn't treat PC gaming like an ugly step child.
Click to expand...

Yeah they need more studios.
 
Tidus_Great said:
exclusives are a good idea i remember xbox360 did well early with exclusives like lost odyssey, Mass Effect, last remnant and bioshock was console exclusive for a while.
that's when MS seemed to actually care and did well in beating ps3, but ever sicne around 2009 they haven't had many interesting exclusives and just kinda did a bunch of shooter games :( I honestly dont see them focusing on anything but shooter game exclusives but hopefully they can do something to bring things back to when the xbox brand was good.
Click to expand...
They was luring people in, 3rd / 2nd party exclusives were small short term investments to get the "usersbase"
 
I'm more interested in new IP than just more exclusives.

That's why I was mad when MS decided to pull Black Tusk off their game and put them on a new Gears of War.

Gears was fine, but I have zero interest in another.

EDIT:

Also please stop putting devs on Kinect... just... stop.
 
Freeman said:
"Games that might not have made it to market" is the new PR strategy to spin exclusivity deals/moneyhats.

If they produce their own first and second party games I think this is a good direction, but if they intend to do as they did with Titanfall its not going to work.

All MS should care for is for their own customers and to provide value to them, making multiplataform games exclusive don't give them anything new, it generates a negative reaction from the market. Buying third party exclusivity is a strategy that collapses with time specially if your install base falls behind.
Click to expand...

Why did you said Titanfall did not work? that game was a system seller, even if it did not sold as much as COD, it was something to attract gamers to the system, it worked for Microsoft and they will have similar deals in the future, and about Bayonetta, it was funded by Nintendo, yes its PR, but it makes sense to say it
 
Exclusive's all well and good but, like, that's not the way the industry is flowing. Microsoft needs to do more to support popular games on other platforms as well. Transistor comes to mind, for example.
 
Captain Pants said:
By 'offering exclusives', do they mean buying them or making them? I don't mean to take such a negative stance on them as they try to turn things around, but it gets old seeing things that don't need to be exclusive become exclusive.
Click to expand...

Making them or buying them makes no difference. It's cheaper for MS to sign deals than to buy, operate and own entire development studios. It also offers studios the ability to stay independent while landing a dependable contract in the form of timed exclusivity.

In my opinion, MS operates in a forward-thinking way, in this regard. MS stays nimble and lean in these deals and developers remain free to strike other deals and partnerships, not tied down to one platform.
 
EmptySpace said:
because one guy isn't responsible for the brand?

oh, i dunno. always-on, no used games policy+infrastructure were decided on by dozens of heads, not a single one. you're putting so much blame on one guy when in fact decisions+recommendations are made and supported by a lot of people within a business organisation. we don't live in a month archy in 1700 where the leader's word is the law. even obama has political and economic advisors, plus military advisors, etc. there are people who help shape the path their organisation will go. it is a collective effort. it wasn't mattrick alone who did all of those to the xbox brand, in the same way yoshida or cerny did it for playstation. that alone shows that xbox was okay with the path that they were on. of course, now their mission statement has changed but not because the evil don mattrick is now gone.
Click to expand...

You do realize MS has had a major restructuring over the past year. With many Xbox execs leaving.
 
if you're really listening then you'll tell rare to throw kinect in the garbage and get back to making the games people liked them for in the first place
 
Sub Boss said:
Why did you said Titafall did not work? that game was a system seller, even if it did not sold as much as COD, it was something to attract gamers to the system, it worked for Microsoft and they will have similar deals in the future, and about Bayonetta, it was funded by Nintendo, yes its PR, but it makes sense to say it
Click to expand...
I didn't say Titanfall didn't work, it certainly didn't change anything, but it was a great deal to MS. I don't think opportunities like this one will repeat themselves, EA was pretty sure the Xbox One would be the best selling console or else it just become hard to justify their choice, all multiplataform games so far are selling better on PS4 its hard to imagine MS paid them enough to offset losing so many potential sales.

MS will also not benefit if they start an arms race to lock multiplataform games to their platform, they might shoot themselves in the foot like they did with the indie scene.
 
They would be wise to focus on exclusives.
That is what's going to get them to the top again.

We all know they own a bunch of classic unused IPs from Rare and the OG Xbox, they just need to use them.
Some new IPs wouldn't hurt either.
 
Courage said:
I'd usually laugh this off, but Spencer seems like a genuine guy. This E3 he has a chance to prove himself.
Click to expand...

Yeah I really like him. I hope he means more than Forza Horizon and Crackdown 3. I want something new from these guys. I want the next sensation the next new IP.
 
Camjo-Z said:
if you're really listening then you'll tell rare to throw kinect in the garbage and get back to making the games people liked them for in the first place
Click to expand...

But I thought MS was supposed to give Rare freedom!?

Right?

So basically MS is supposed to be hands off on Rare to let Rare do what it wants, but if Rare wants to do something profitable (kinect games) then suddenly MS has to be hands on again. Got it.
 
xyGvOF9.gif
 
Long gone are the days of being able to find the same games available for every console, in the modern age of gaming it is the exclusive titles that pull in customers -- as demonstrated perfectly by the likes of Titanfall and Ryse: Son of Rome.
Click to expand...

Really now? It's been exactly the opposite for years, when the most of the PS3 and 360 libraries consisted of the same 3rd party games. The 360 versions just sold better, because they ran better, and the userbase was bigger. Much like with the PS4 now.

As for Ryse and TF demonstrating perfectly how exclusives pull in customers, I think the NPD March figures and the LTD sales beg to differ.
 
spannicus said:
People are holding on to the past. He did say the future.
Click to expand...

I know. It's like people don't want the Xbox platform to be better. The man just got his position, let's go ahead and see what he does with it.

We don't benefit from Xbox being shit do we?
 
Phil Spencer seems like he's the right guy for the job and I think he can actually bring good things to Xbox; however, let's not forget that he presided over some of Microsoft Game Studio's worst years. I will remain cautiously optimistic.
 
Microsoft sonds more and more like last gen's Sony. I mean, now they're focusing on exclusives (like Sony did), and the multiplatforms (almost all of them) run better on the competitor's console. I mean, that is, if MS indeed has great exclusives to show.
 
His greatest achievement to date is deflecting all the blame for last year onto Mattrick, meaning he's now being seen as the saviour by xbros. This conveniently forgets that as head of first party development and a member of Mattrick's first line he must have been fully signed up to the DRM and the overall XB1 strategy, and he's also directly responsible for the lack of interesting 360 games in the past few years.

But still, he has an active XBL account and he's saying the right things, so he's got to be better than Mattrick right?
 
Chettlar said:
But I thought MS was supposed to give Rare freedom!?

Right?

So basically MS is supposed to be hands off on Rare to let Rare do what it wants, but if Rare wants to do something profitable (kinect games) then suddenly MS has to be hands on again. Got it.
Click to expand...

I think everybody that's ever said "MS should give Rare freedom!!" was also under the impression that Rare was being forced to make Kinect games.
 
Trago said:
I know. It's like people don't want the Xbox platform to be better. The man just got his position, let's go ahead and see what he does with it.

We don't benefit from Xbox being shit do we?
Click to expand...
Around here it seems like they dont. Sony on the other hand... I like competition and I fully expect the X to be just as good as the 360
 
Insane Metal said:
Microsoft sonds more and more like last gen's Sony. I mean, now they're focusing on exclusives (like Sony did), and the multiplatforms (almost all of them) run better on the competitor's console. I mean, that is, if MS indeed has great exclusives to show.
Click to expand...

It's strange. I loved my PS3 more than my 360 even when Sony and the PS3 was being drug through the flames. Now I'm more sold on the Xbox One as it is being put to the fire. Funny how that works out.
 
Trago said:
I know. It's like people don't want the Xbox platform to be better. The man just got his position, let's go ahead and see what he does with it.

We don't benefit from Xbox being shit do we?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but the concerns are warranted. Spencer was head of MGS and didn't that great of a job. Heck, he presided over it in pretty much it's worse years (the last 4 years or so have been completely dry for the 360. I can see why people are questioning his ability.
 
Exclusives definitely matter, and I wonder if the lack of strong exclusives in the second of half of the last generation hurt the Xbox's image at all. I mean, why buy a Xbox One if all the games you are interested in are also on PS4/PC, on top of appealing exclusives on those platforms? It would be completely redundant.

Of course having the big multiplatform games is important too, just ask Nintendo. It is basically the same logic, just the other end of the spectrum. Exclusively NOT having a game is damaging.

Reallink said:
If someone owns multiple consoles, why would they ever be happy about having to buy the game on a platform with lesser performance, a non-preferred controller, an online system they're not subbed to, etc...? Like he said it's fine when the game's not going to happen w/o the funding, but paying off publishers just to keep the game off Console Y is objectively bad for consumers. I have no idea why I'm having to explain this to you in the first place.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I have no idea why people are defending this. It is the difference between paying to create a game, and paying to restrict a game.
 
CoG said:
Phil says what we like to hear but when you go back and analyze his track record he became head GM of MGS in 2008, right about the time they morphed into a Halo/Fable/Forza production line. The decline of MGS correlates exactly to his time at the helm so you got to wonder if he's really in it for us, the gamers, or not.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think my thoughts are the same, while he might not have as much power as he has now MGS havent been churning out anything interesting since Kinect turned up, to think Phil Spencer isnt partily to blame seems naive. How that impacts him as Xbox head will be interesting but we wont see that this E3 when realistically most of the exclusives on show would have been greenflagged by Don Mattrick...
Whitechocolatekrispies said:
Too little too late.

Their console is already too compromised from their earlier miss-direction. Underpowered (ESRAM etc), over gimmicked (mandatory Kinect that ... no one uses) and too expensive. In terms of hardware, they've lost and will never recover. PS4 is more powerful and cheaper, games will always do more and look better.

But hardware isn't everything. Games also help, however last time I checked Microsoft have buried, lost and crippled most of their great first party studios. So it's all about third party exclusivity, only that's off to a terrible start. Smaller user base, harder development and a track record already off to a bad start. Oh and let's not forget a lot of high profile developers can't actually buy their console in their home country.

So exclusives. I can't see EA, Take Two and Ubisoft agreeing to limit the sale of a big AAA title to less than half the console user-base. Me thinks we will just see shitty promo deals like 'DLC map packs first' etc. Nothing of substance.
Click to expand...
Well they need to right the ship sooner rather than later so I just cant see that not involving moneyhats - in hindsight its mad to think they removed focus from their own studios (sheer complacency?) now they are in such a mess where MGS would have been an ideal solution - its what Sony had to do with the PS3...

ps3ud0 8)
 
chaosblade said:
Exclusives definitely matter, and I wonder if the lack of strong exclusives in the second of half of the last generation hurt the Xbox's image at all. I mean, why buy a Xbox One if all the games you are interested in are also on PS4/PC, on top of appealing exclusives on those platforms? It would be completely redundant.

Of course having the big multiplatform games is important too, just ask Nintendo. It is basically the same logic, just the other end of the spectrum. Exclusively NOT having a game is damaging.



Exactly, I have no idea why people are defending this. It is the difference between paying to create a game, and paying to restrict a game.
Click to expand...

Right. Now please list all of these games MS is supposed to have kept off of other consoles through money hats. People keep bringing it up over and over as if they do this a lot yet all i hear about is Titanfall and that's been pretty much debunked so what are the others? I'd also like to put that list up against the amount of third party exclusives on the PS2 during that gen that i couldn't play on my Xbox and before that Dreamcast. You know the DMCs, FF, Dragon Quests, Tales( not to mention Soul Calibur 3) etc...


Dragonborn said:
Of course not, but the concerns are warranted. Spencer was head of MGS and didn't that great of a job. Heck, he presided over it in pretty much it's worse years (the last 4 years or so have been completely dry for the 360. I can see why people are questioning his ability.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure he presided over it during it's best years as well. You know when Peter More was running things as opposed to Don Mattrick?
 
Chettlar said:
As has been said so many times, this kind of statement ignores a bunch of other factors. He was not head of Xbox. He had the entire hierarchy of other people above him against the games, games, games vision. Balmer, Mattrick, all those guys were against that vision, so not matter what he wanted to do, he could not just greenlight anything he wanted to. He's the guy who gets down there and does a bunch of dirty work, but if he wants to, say, greenlight a new IP or whatever, he can't do that with the other people over him saying no.
Click to expand...

The guy was General Manager of Microsoft Game Studios. He would have to be pretty ineffective at his job to have such little influence on the studio's direction. Also, he still reports to people. Terry Myerson, head of operating systems, is Phil's boss. Myerson's job is to unify Windows, Windows Phone, and Xbox so there is still going to be a lot of downward pressure on Phil to do non-gaming stuff. Yusuf Mehdi is also Phil's counterpart, leading the business strategy and marketing side of the Xbox.

But hey, he wore a State of Decay tee under his blazer, so, gamer.
 
abadguy said:
Right. Now please list all of these games MS is supposed to have kept off of other consoles through money hats. People keep bringing it up over and over as if they do this a lot yet all i hear about is Titanfall and that's been pretty much debunked so what are the others? I'd also like to put that list up against the amount of third party exclusives on the PS2 during that gen that i couldn't play on my Xbox and before that Dreamcast. You know the DMCs, FF, Dragon Quests, Tales( not to mention Soul Calibur 3) etc...
Click to expand...

Although I mostly agree with you. You can't really put the blame for PS2 exclusives on Sony. That's basically accusing them of "doing too well".
 
Darkologia said:
I can't help but feel that this guy is just trying to fix XBO image by saying what everyone want to hear its like he is being stressed from higher up to keep repeating "games" word every time anyone ask him something. Talk is cheap
Click to expand...

So what do you expect him to do, say nothing and wait for however long it takes for these games to come out before he tries to change the messaging? Really now.
 
mdubs said:
So what do you expect him to do, say nothing and wait for however long it takes for these games to come out before he tries to change the messaging? Really now.
Click to expand...

Eh sometimes you just gotta shut your mouth.

Remember when Albert was posting that bs on here ? People actually fell for it to.
 
Darkologia said:
I can't help but feel that this guy is just trying to fix XBO image by saying what everyone want to hear its like he is being stressed from higher up to keep repeating "games" word every time anyone ask him something. Talk is cheap
Click to expand...
He was the Microsoft games head before this roll.... And from higher up? He is at the top
 
abadguy said:
Right. Now please list all of these games MS is supposed to have kept off of other consoles through money hats. People keep bringing it up over and over as if they do this a lot yet all i hear about is Titanfall and that's been pretty much debunked so what are the others? I'd also like to put that list up against the amount of third party exclusives on the PS2 during that gen that i couldn't play on my Xbox and before that Dreamcast. You know the DMCs, FF, Dragon Quests, Tales( not to mention Soul Calibur 3) etc...
Click to expand...

Dead Rising, and the timed exclusivity on Bioshock, Limbo, Lost Planet, and Mass Effect 2 come to mind. Supposedly they have a similar deal with PvZ:GW (edit: and Below) now.

EDIT.2: And of course Minecraft.

AFAIK, the PS2 had most of those games because of the vastly bigger userbase, especially in Japan.
 
Darkologia said:
I can't help but feel that this guy is just trying to fix XBO image by saying what everyone want to hear its like he is being stressed from higher up to keep repeating "games" word every time anyone ask him something. Talk is cheap
Click to expand...
I feel the same way. Didn't they recently announce a bunch of TV stuff?
 
Melchiah said:
Dead Rising, and the timed exclusivity on Bioshock, Limbo, Lost Planet, and Mass Effect 2 come to mind. Supposedly they have a similar deal with PvZ:GW (edit: and Below) now.

AFAIK, the PS2 had most of those games because of the vastly bigger userbase, especially in Japan.
Click to expand...

Is it fair to say MS money hatted games like Lost Planet and Dead Rising? Weren't they exclusives by default due to PS3 not being out in all regions and the generally poor development environment at the time?
 
Miles Quaritch said:
Is it fair to say MS money hatted games like Lost Planet and Dead Rising? Weren't they exclusives by default due to PS3 not being out in all regions and the generally poor development environment at the time?
Click to expand...

Not to mention the PS3 got Lost Planet not too long after it was on the 360 and the DR sequels. To be honest i have yet to see any real proof of MS passing out top hats filled with money to publishers.
 
E3 2015 is when we'll see Phil truly effecting Xbox.


I'm really excited for the Xbox E3 Conference, more than Sony's or Nintendo's. After last years, I think Microsoft will do really well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Explain to me how Phil Spencer is NOT the problem?
2 3
113
241
Panajev2001a replied
Why the hate for Phil Spencer?
3 4 5 6 7
306
4K
alabtrosMyster replied
What was Phil Spencer Playing Here at The Inititiative?
2 3
108
2K
TerribleAtThisGame replied
  • Locked
Rumour - Phil Spencer to retire after next console launch (UP: MS said that Spencer isn’t retiring imminently)
2 3 4
172
2K
CyberCali replied
Phil Spencer's Legacy as told by Phil Spencer
2 3
108
8K
Rush2112 replied
Top Bottom