Question: Let's assume for the sake of this discussion his boss has told him he's not allowed to take the brand into debt (which jives with what he's saying here), and he's got a limited budget for developing exclusives. Let's assume Nadella and the board told him they would be supportive of buying companies so long as their accounting numbers were in the green (hence why they bought so many developers and ABK, Bethesda, etc.)
What should Phil have done differently during the XO generation? I get that Game Pass is basically a financial failure now that the experiment has played out, but I don't remember anyone betting against it when it was launched. My memory is a lot of people saying "This is a bold move for them, and it might work out." Honestly, I'm surprised they managed to sell 60m XO units. The public sentiment in 2013 around the Xbox brand seemed terminal to me. I was half convinced they would exit the market by the end of that generation.
And given how the XO generation turned out for them, I'm not sure what he could have done differently in the last 3 years. Obviously we'd all like a half dozen new highly rated IPs from them, but that's easily a couple billion dollars of spending that I'm guessing he couldn't get approval for. I get it - "Then why did they spend billions buying ABK and Bethesda?" - Because those were companies with proven track records.
I'm not an Xbox guy any more (PC main, PS secondary), but it seems like Phil is getting blamed for the slow death of the Xbox brand. I'm guessing he's doing what he can with the boundaries he's been given. Unless there's something I'm missing?