Phil Spencer On Xbox’s Unusual Strategy, Working With Sony, And More

Klayzer said:
There's also a lot of profit in hardware as in introducing new customers to your ecosystem. The narrative that "the money is only in services" is disingenuous at best. With the kind of capital Microsoft has, nothing should preclude them from doing both relatively easily.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much profit, a lot of times console manufacturers have to take loses, especially when a new gen starts to make their console priced competitively. Software sales, subscription services, even GaaS are all revenue streams that aren't as unpredictable as hardware sales and a constant stream.

Psykodad said:
I think it would be their best option: go 3rd party publisher.

Xbox is done for. They're merely delaying the inevitable.
Click to expand...

Why are they done for? Xbox brand has been pretty profitable lately. If you're basing this solely on the lukewarm performance sales of the Xbox One console then I hope you said the same about Nintendo and the Wii U.
 
Pallas said:
Why are they done for? Xbox brand has been pretty profitable lately. If you're basing this solely on the lukewarm performance sales of the Xbox One console then I hope you said the same about Nintendo and the Wii U.
Click to expand...

Because MS has already done fuck up at the start of this gen.

Last-gen they had succes thanks to Sony's fuck ups.
MS can't compete with Sony and Nintendo.

It's mostly people from the US who still have faith in Xbox.
As a console under MS, at least.
 
Last edited:
Kagey K said:
So show me the article that debunks Ubis numbers.

I know I'd rather have 1 customer that makes me 10 dollars then 10 customers that make me one.

You won't find anything, all evidence shows that 1 Xbox customer is worth more then 1 Ps user over and over.
Click to expand...
You seem flustered and throwing logic out the window.
You made the claim that "they make more money/dollar and the rewards aren't as great", that's just wrong.
Your article doesn't say this. The burden of proof is on you because we only have revenue. The other thing it doesn't say is that there are less ubisoft customers spending more.

My whole point is that there are more potential customers on PS4 but this says nothing about profit or ubi customera. They made 58% more on PS4 in terms of revenue and this does not match the install base ratio. The point is that the amount of customers that they do have may not match the install base ratio but that does not mean each ubi customer spent more it may mean that they had more customers than the ratio would predict.

Your 1 customer making you $10 and 10 customers making you $1 , again wrong if you are talking about the Ubisoft numbers.
It is more like 100 million potential PS4 owners collectively buying $160 worth of ubisoft products and 50 million potential XB1 owners spending collectively $100. The Ubisoft customer split is not known. In fact they may have had to make cuts in profit to gain more revenue (black firday bundle sales actually being a good example of that) ending up with more customers than the ratio predicts. The point I'm making is that your claim that they are making more money/dollar is bullshit and not shown by any article. You prove that. I don't need to debunk the article of anything.
 
Last edited:
[
Three said:
You seem flustered and throwing logic out the window.
You made the claim that "they make more money/dollar and the rewards aren't as great", that's just wrong.
Your article doesn't say this. The burden of proof is on you because we only have revenue. The other thing it doesn't say is that there are less ubisoft customers spending more.

My whole point is that there are more potential customers on PS4 but this says nothing about profit or ubi customera. They made 58% more on PS4 in terms of revenue and this does not match the install base ratio. The point is that the amount of customers that they do have may not match the install base ratio but that does not mean each ubi customer spent more it may mean that they had more customers than the ratio would predict.

Your 1 customer making you $10 and 10 customers making you $1 ,
Again wrong if you are talking about the Ubisoft numbers.
It is more like 100 million PS4 owners collectively buying $160 worth of ubisoft products and 50 million XB1 owners spending collectively $100. The Ubisoft customer split is not known. In fact they may have had to make cuts in profit to gain more revenue (black firday bundle sales actually being a good example of that) ending up with more customers than the ratio predicts. The point I'm making is that your claim that they are making more money/dollar is bullshit and not shown by any article. You prove that. I don't need to debunk the article of anything.
Click to expand...
let me know when you have some compelling evidence and not just feelings.

I'll be waiting,

I get it, I broke the NPCs and all thier logic. Now they are scrambled. Hopefully they regroup soon.
 
Last edited:
Kagey K said:
[

let me know when you have some compelling evidence and not just feelings.

I'll be waiting,

I get it, I broke the NPCs and all thier logic. Now they are scrambled. Hopefully they regroup soon.
Click to expand...
Compelling evidence for what? I'm not the one making some claim.

I get it you get off on MS making money from you but you seem to have lost track of what's being discussed.
 
Psykodad said:
Because MS has already done fuck up at the start of this gen.

Last-gen they had succes thanks to Sony's fuck ups.
MS can't compete with Sony and Nintendo.

It's mostly people from the US who still have faith in Xbox.
As a console under MS, at least.
Click to expand...

You can easily twist that argument around and say Sony was much more successful this gen because of Microsoft's fuck up. Let's not forget about Nintendo's fuck up with the Wii U either.

It's not all doom and gloom. They seem committed to the console business but also want us to be able to play our games on other devices.

There will be a time, maybe in our own lifetime that consoles won't be needed anymore. That's what I believe anyways, I think Microsoft sees it, Sony probably sees it too.

Panajev2001a said:
Love it... we sell games and services not consoles, but not on PlayStation. We aim to let players play wherever they want, on every device... as long as it is not a PlayStation console... sure sure...
Click to expand...

And? I don't think they have the final say if they want their games on a Playstation, you need to talk to Sony, chief. Pretty sure we both know that answer, not sure if you're trying to troll or what.
 
Pallas said:
You can easily twist that argument around and say Sony was much more successful this gen because of Microsoft's fuck up. Let's not forget about Nintendo's fuck up with the Wii U either.

It's not all doom and gloom. They seem committed to the console business but also want us to be able to play our games on other devices.

There will be a time, maybe in our own lifetime that consoles won't be needed anymore. That's what I believe anyways, I think Microsoft sees it, Sony probably sees it too.



And? I don't think they have the final say if they want their games on a Playstation, you need to talk to Sony, chief. Pretty sure we both know that answer, not sure if you're trying to troll or what.
Click to expand...
Really? One only has to look at Playstations sales history to see a pattern, with PS3 being the only exception due to a bad start and even that outsold the 360.

Think about that for a second:
Sony worst console still outsold MS most succesful console.

That's purely objective.
 
Panajev2001a said:
Love it... we sell games and services not consoles, but not on PlayStation. We aim to let players play wherever they want, on every device... as long as it is not a PlayStation console... sure sure...
Click to expand...

oh, give it time. spencer will kneel I have no doubt.
 
Exclusivity is stupid. No other entertainment medium is like this. Imagine you can only watch Sony Pictures Blu-ray on PlayStations. The end all be all is ubiquity.
 
Sid Of Bee said:
Exclusivity is stupid. No other entertainment medium is like this. Imagine you can only watch Sony Pictures Blu-ray on PlayStations. The end all be all is ubiquity.
Click to expand...
It beats the alternative. 10 subscriptions to different services because you can't watch Game of Thrones on Netflix, Amazon Prime or your subscription of choice.

We get subsidised hardware in this games model and exclusives to intice us into getting it at least.

Can I download and run Apple iOS apps and games on Android devices? Not really, even though they are near identical.
 
Lukin1978 said:
Basically he's saying we aren't selling enough consoles so we have to get our brand more exposure.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the case. They're trying to sell games and services. Consoles, even if you sell 100 Million, are not the profitable part of the business. Sony sees it this way too, but make money off of PSNow, PS+ and soon PS+ Premium. The difference is, Microsoft has Windows and allows exclusives to go there also. Sony only does that with certain multiplayer games.
 
Last edited:
Sycomunkee said:
I don't think that's the case. They're trying to sell games and services. Consoles, even if you sell 100 Million, are not the profitable part of the business. Sony sees it this way too, but make money off of PSNow, PS+ and soon PS+ Premium. The difference is, Microsoft has Windows and allows exclusives to go there also.
Click to expand...

Depends on who is running the business. Everyone has Windows, its open, which has been the problem - they have to compete and they don't want to compete for the last 15-20 years even on their own created OS, imo.

If they want to release good games on other devices/platforms, I think that is good, all this service as a platform stuff, nobody really needs them or wants them, imo.
 
Last edited:
DanielsM said:
Depends on who is running the business. Everyone has Windows, its open, which has been the problem - they have to compete and they don't want to compete for the last 15-20 years even on their own created OS, imo.

If they want to release good games on other devices/platforms, I think that is good, all this service as a platform stuff, nobody really needs them or wants them, imo.
Click to expand...
If nobody wanted them, then money wouldn't be made on them. Buy games outright, or subscribe to the service. It's ultimately your choice.
 
Last edited:
Sycomunkee said:
If nobody wanted them, then money wouldn't be made on them. Buy games outright, or subscribe to the service. It's ultimately your choice.
Click to expand...

Hm, I'm talking as far as Microsoft expanding - no they really aren't making money which is why Games for Windows Live was shutdown and basically the Microsoft Store is in a collapsed state or near so. Nobody needs them like that, not really. The other PC digital store fronts are better, make more sense, and have customers.

If people wanted them or needed them they wouldn't be doing what they are doing now.... what you are witnessing now is basically Games for Windows Live v3.0 because they don't want to compete or can't compete.

If they want to make and deploy good games to other devices and platforms, I think that is good - not sure all the rest of this is going to work out, once again.
 
Last edited:
I really don't like Phil Spencer. The Xbox brand under him and Mattrick before him, really has gone down the shitter. The brand was at its best when Peter Moore was at the helm. I miss that guy. He understood Xbox and always made E3 a fun time.

I hope Xbox recovers and finds its way again. As it stands now I don't think I'll ever buy an Xbox again. I'm not interested in the direction they're going in.
 
Pallas said:
You can easily twist that argument around and say Sony was much more successful this gen because of Microsoft's fuck up. Let's not forget about Nintendo's fuck up with the Wii U either.

It's not all doom and gloom. They seem committed to the console business but also want us to be able to play our games on other devices.

There will be a time, maybe in our own lifetime that consoles won't be needed anymore. That's what I believe anyways, I think Microsoft sees it, Sony probably sees it too.



And? I don't think they have the final say if they want their games on a Playstation, you need to talk to Sony, chief. Pretty sure we both know that answer, not sure if you're trying to troll or what.
Click to expand...

Sure sure... they are actively trying and mean Sony is being mean ;).
 
"Play where you want to play" Microsoft are working to be more than just the box you play on. If those box is the best performing one, people that want that will buy it. If you just want to play the game without that cost, well here's a version of that game for you.

It's long overdue that the business model Nintendo setup in the 80's was disrupted.
 
nush said:
"Play where you want to play" Microsoft are working to be more than just the box you play on. If those box is the best performing one, people that want that will buy it. If you just want to play the game without that cost, well here's a version of that game for you.

It's long overdue that the business model Nintendo setup in the 80's was disrupted.
Click to expand...

What you are saying is like some big huge life changing event but none of it includes any tangible details.
 
DanielsM said:
What you are saying is like some big huge life changing event but none of it includes any tangible details.
Click to expand...
You've either been following the messaging from Microsoft over recent times or not. Tangible details are there and open to interpretation.
 
nush said:
You've either been following the messaging from Microsoft over recent times or not. Tangible details are there and open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

So, you say play "Play where you want to play" what does that mean, in particular? And how is Microsoft working on it?

Hint, Microsoft is still using Nintendo's model from the 80s, its just now within a subscription.
 
Last edited:
nush said:
That's a Microsoft quote. As I said, "you've either been following or not". Your in the not camp.
Click to expand...

Yes, they said it but you say they were working on it, so what is "it". I'm asking for help so I can understand your post.

Your in the not camp.
Click to expand...

Yet, you won't tell me what camp that is.
 
Last edited:
nush said:
You've either been following the messaging from Microsoft over recent times or not. Tangible details are there and open to interpretation.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna guwss you're arguing with Daniels lol.

Microsofts message has been clear. If people don't get it by now they never will.
 
Riven326 said:
I really don't like Phil Spencer. The Xbox brand under him and Mattrick before him, really has gone down the shitter. The brand was at its best when Peter Moore was at the helm. I miss that guy. He understood Xbox and always made E3 a fun time.

I hope Xbox recovers and finds its way again. As it stands now I don't think I'll ever buy an Xbox again. I'm not interested in the direction they're going in.
Click to expand...


Won't happen. Xbox is the way it is now, mostly because of Nadella's decisions. Maybe it would have been better if they had sold off the division, to someone who actually valued video games, back when there had been rumors about it.
 
I don't know what to say to people who believe that Microsoft, the 8th largest American company in assets, usually in the top 5 in market cap (briefly number 1 mere six months ago) and one of the richest companies in the history of capitalism is "done for".

Sony cannot outspend Microsoft - anywhere. Microsoft has more in cash (they have about 100 billion lying around) than Sony makes in yearly revenue.

I am primarily a Sony customer, but let's be realistic here, MSFT is not going anywhere.
 
There's a lot of mental gymnastics going on here to try and make the interview unclear.

They ask him if MS is looking to go third party. He says no.

They ask him if consoles are important and he explains they are critical to the division and they intend to keep building the most powerful ones in the world.

They ask why have games on Switch and not PlayStation. He says because Nintendo allows the games to directly connect to Xbox Live. Sony would not.

It's not rocket science to understand.
 
Klayzer said:
Still waiting for the answer to: "Will Gears or Halo show up on the Switch/PS". He completely fill-a-bustered on that question twice. We learned nothing we didn't know before that piece.
Click to expand...
As soon as sony allows crossplay and signing jnto xbox live im sure some games will show up. If they sell wel more games will show up. I think cuphead was a no brainer on switch but i doubt halo or gears would sell well on switch and most people i know own ps4 dont play online games.
 
Why does everyone expect Phil to tell anything and everything? Like none of the other big figures from Sony or Nintendo do. In fact, I'd say Phil makes himself way more available to answer questions than anyone else in the industry. But yet we get, "oh it's typical phil interview where he tells us nothing, bla bla bla."
Psykodad said:
Really? One only has to look at Playstations sales history to see a pattern, with PS3 being the only exception due to a bad start and even that outsold the 360.

Think about that for a second:
Sony worst console still outsold MS most succesful console.

That's purely objective.
Click to expand...
All Pallas said is that you can make an argument that Sony was more successful this gen because MS effed up, which is totally true. But what you have to keep in mind too is that Microsoft can't do anything about closed-minded gamers from around the world who won't play an xbox game simply because it's an xbox game or the sheltered kids in Japan who don't even know what an xbox is. That is probably the most annoying thing about playstation fanboys, constantly fapping off to Sony sales numbers when often it literally has nothing to do with the quality or the number of games on the xbox. Good for them I guess for excluding themselves from new gaming experiences just because, "OHHHH YEAAHHH PLAYSTATION MOTHER FUCKERS!!!!" :pie_eyeroll: fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
 
Last edited:
Rhazer Fusion said:
I think he's talking about on a direct competitor. It would be like Sony putting Last of Us or Spider-Man on the Xbox One as opposed to having it on the iPad or PS Vita. Sure, I know Cuphead is on Switch, but I don't really consider Nintendo direct competition.
Click to expand...
And still Nintendo is shure to gonna past the xbox one hardware sales in a short time. So yes Nintendo is a player in the console market, MS should not count them out.😉
 
PharaoTutAnchAmun said:
And still Nintendo is shure to gonna past the xbox one hardware sales in a short time. So yes Nintendo is a player in the console market, MS should not count them out.😉
Click to expand...

Good point. I'm sure passing Xbox numbers in this short time frame will gain Microsoft's attention where they take them more serious.
 
Feel bad for him, having to name drop his competitor all the time in interviews as they've driven their own brand into the dirt. Folks saying he's stuck trying to sort out Mattrick's mess, forget his whole "power of the cloud" phase which ended up as literally nothing as they removed most of it from the only game that was even planning to utilise it (Crackdown 3).

But it sounds like they are going to be in a much better position by the time Scarlet is released due to the acquisitions unless they choose to focus on cloud gaming that nobody asked for instead.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cynn said:
There's a lot of mental gymnastics going on here to try and make the interview unclear.

They ask him if MS is looking to go third party. He says no.

They ask him if consoles are important and he explains they are critical to the division and they intend to keep building the most powerful ones in the world.

They ask why have games on Switch and not PlayStation. He says because Nintendo allows the games to directly connect to Xbox Live. Sony would not.

It's not rocket science to understand.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's a lot of mental gymnastics to actually make sense of their Platform as a Service. Basically, they are on broken store #2 MS Store (after Satya put Games for Windows Live out of its misery) which Satya was/is probably going to can and soon UWP out its misery. The Xbox as a Hardware is now selling very poorly, so they jailbroke their own hardware to make a Platform as a Service, but really they have no real pull for big developers/publishers to join in, at least in the future that I can see... most of them have their own competing digital store and competing services. What makes sense for businesses to run from the cloud, sometimes, doesn't really make much sense from the consumers point of view, which is why very few consumers run Windows Desktops from virtual environments. Once the losses start piling on, my bet they make the original Xbox and Xbox 360 look like the good years, Satya better have lots of blank checks handy. Basically, we'll bet Valve with Store #3 which will be a rental service... good luck with that... games rapidly decrease in value.

Phil sold Satya a bill of goods, allows him to get 3-5 years down the road and he can put in early retirement. Bravo to him.
 
Last edited:
Deputy Moonman said:
Why does everyone expect Phil to tell anything and everything? Like none of the other big figures from Sony or Nintendo do. In fact, I'd say Phil makes himself way more available to answer questions than anyone else in the industry. But yet we get, "oh it's typical phil interview where he tells us nothing, bla bla bla."

All Pallas said is that you can make an argument that Sony was more successful this gen because MS effed up, which is totally true. But what you have to keep in mind too is that Microsoft can't do anything about closed-minded gamers from around the world who won't play an xbox game simply because it's an xbox game or the sheltered kids in Japan who don't even know what an xbox is. That is probably the most annoying thing about playstation fanboys, constantly fapping off to Sony sales numbers when often it literally has nothing to do with the quality or the number of games on the xbox. Good for them I guess for excluding themselves from new gaming experiences just because, "OHHHH YEAAHHH PLAYSTATION MOTHER FUCKERS!!!!" :pie_eyeroll: fap fap fap fap fap fap fap
Click to expand...
Too bad MS lacks the quality with their games.
That's their biggest problem and has zero to do with "closeminded fanboys".
 
Riven326 said:
I really don't like Phil Spencer. The Xbox brand under him and Mattrick before him, really has gone down the shitter. The brand was at its best when Peter Moore was at the helm. I miss that guy. He understood Xbox and always made E3 a fun time.

I hope Xbox recovers and finds its way again. As it stands now I don't think I'll ever buy an Xbox again. I'm not interested in the direction they're going in.
Click to expand...


The days of guys moore running things ended when the ps4 launch crew left for a bunch of empty suits. It's a shame to the industry was better when guys like moore and the ps4 launch crew are in charge. Spencer has an impossible job after the mess he was left with the stock holders wanting to cut the division. My hope is Sony gets better leader soon great studios horrible upper management who are riding the coat tails of the ps4 launch team. Every decision is about milking every dime from customers anti consumer left and right. The exact opposite of the start of the generation.
 
Last edited:
Psykodad said:
Too bad MS lacks the quality with their games.
That's their biggest problem and has zero to do with "closeminded fanboys".
Click to expand...

Depends, that's pretty subjective with "lacking quality" but I will agree that Sony knocked it out this gen with their first party games. So here's hoping with the new studio acquisitions that we get some great games and more of them next gen.

I think "close minded fanboys" was a bit harsh but I see Moonman's point, brand loyalty is a real thing. While Microsoft has acquired its own brand loyalty, it pales in comparison to both Sony and Nintendo and we both know the start of this gen didn't help it any.
 
Pallas said:
Depends, that's pretty subjective with "lacking quality" but I will agree that Sony knocked it out this gen with their first party games. So here's hoping with the new studio acquisitions that we get some great games and more of them next gen.

I think "close minded fanboys" was a bit harsh but I see Moonman's point, brand loyalty is a real thing. While Microsoft has acquired its own brand loyalty, it pales in comparison to both Sony and Nintendo and we both know the start of this gen didn't help it any.
Click to expand...
I'm not denying the existence of brand loyalty or fanboys, but being objective doesn't excuse MS pisspoor handling of their first party games.
That hasn't been just this gen, it started from mid last-gen.

Pretty much all their games, except for maybe Forza, have been mediocre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Which UBI IP should Phil Spencer and XBOX purchase?
2
85
2K
Holammer replied
Phil Spencer's Legacy as told by Phil Spencer
2 3
106
6K
Negotiator replied
Phil Spencer on ‘A Minecraft Movie’ Gamble, ‘Fallout’ Season 2 and Mixing Hollywood Pursuits With Xbox Biz Priorities
6
398
Little Chicken replied
Microsoft Gaming Boss Phil Spencer Says Xbox Fans Will See More Movie and TV Show Adaptations
News 
1
415
Walter Matthau replied
Phil Spencer says Xbox is "really happy" with Indiana Jones "there's life in that franchise," but he also wants more original IP
47
990
UltimaKilo replied
Top Bottom