Thomas Mahler (Ori Dev): Phil Spencer's Strategy of Supporting All Devices is "the right approach"

Topher

Topher

Identifies as young
yJ1P9lb.png


pCY9tgT.png




Pinging thomasmahler thomasmahler since he posts here
 
The problem is that Phil Spencer isn't saying this genuinely. He's doing this out of necessity. It's not like he believes any of this deep down. He's been given marching orders.

Unilateral disarmament for lack of a better phrase as it is so baked into the idea of console wars, will result in a completely different industry.

As a software developer you might not have to worry today about the health of a specific platform, but it is the platform holders responsibility to worry about that not only for today, but for tomorrow.

When all these Xbox games start coming to PS and Switch, the Xbox platform is going to crumble and that will have an impact on the industry. It just will.
 
It's great for gamers and devs. Some people will criticise why they did it, but i think only the result matters.
 
Thomas Mahler: "People should buy the device they like the most, but they should then have access to all the content."


ZmfZtX2.gif



Seriously, this is a child's logic. It's not in the best interest of any intelligent company, and PlayStation and Nintendo aren't obligated to follow suit just because Xbox jumped off a cliff thinking it was a great idea.
 
Last edited:
The only reason phil and xbox overall are porting all their games to other platforms is because he completely failed as a CEO and has sunk the xbox division to its lowest point and yes i'm including the xbox one debacle. Going all in on gamepass was the worst possible decision microsoft could've been made and we're seeing the results of its failure now which is the xbox division going third party essentially cause they're not making enough money through gamepass to make up for all the lost revenue sales on their games.


The entire purpose of first party and second party games is to drive hardware sales so that people get into your ecosystem and therefore spend money on your storefront, accessories, subscription etc which makes you the bulk of your profit. People flat-out don't understand that concept and keep saying 'Ohh this is great for gamers' because they're not looking at it from a business perspective at all and don't understand why it's not good in the longrun. Just look at how the series s and x have completely died in terms of hardware sales if you don't believe me.
 
Last edited:
ungalo said:
Well, they won't, and they would be incredibly dumb to do so (porting their games on Xbox, not talking about PC).
Click to expand...
They have no real incentive to port their games to Xbox but I do see them being way more active in the PC space and look forward to the day I can play games like Ghost of Yotei day one on PC and still buy shooters on PlayStation
 
bold GIF


MS has LOST they know it the whole world knows it this "exclusives are wrong" argument flies in the face of the ENTIRE history of home gaming.
 
Yes, more access to multiple platforms and more cross-play are consumer friendly initiatives, and I'm glad Microsoft is doing it. However, I think what annoys people is that Microsoft is doing it out of necessity, not because of some cherished principled stance.

It wasn't too long ago when they were winning with the Xbox 360 that Microsoft was the strict one, if I remember correctly.
 
I guess conceptually it seems sensible, but really it depends on whether we're talking 1st party or 3rd party.

The problem he describes is also a licensing problem. As a consumer why should I have to buy a copy of a game per platform? If I have an Xbox upstairs and a PS5 downstairs why should I need to pay a publisher twice for say, Valhalla? The case he makes strengthens that view.

'Porting from one platform to another isn't a big deal any more'.

Honestly though I'd be happy if all 1st parties had a year of exclusivity and then went to other platforms.
 
Rentahamster said:
Yes, more access to multiple platforms and more cross-play are consumer friendly initiatives, and I'm glad Microsoft is doing it. However, I think what annoys people is that Microsoft is doing it out of necessity, not because of some cherished principled stance.

It wasn't too long ago when they were winning with the Xbox 360 that Microsoft was the strict one, if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

Ya they're pivoting and marketing themselves as a a publisher and consumer friendly by sharing their games with nintendo and sony when in reality they're doing it cause they have too for money reasons because phil has failed in every aspect as a CEO. I love how people are eating this marketing crap up and praising microsoft because it just shows how gullible consumers can be for falling for this crap.
 
Last edited:
It's good approach but we all know they were forced into adopting this strategy because of many years of trying, and failing to position Xbox as the windows of gaming.
 
Last edited:
"device"
Like what? my phone.
There is a console and pc. Not really a lot of ground to cover and choices. Should I be angry they are not making games on my dslr too ?
 
What strategy? They're doing this out of necessity because hardware sales collapsed. How stupid do they think we are? You think we forgot nadella saying "let's have competition" or matt booty saying " we can spend sony out of business"? They had to go running to sony's install base instead!
 
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4 said:
They have no real incentive to port their games to Xbox but I do see them being way more active in the PC space and look forward to the day I can play games like Ghost of Yotei day one on PC and still buy shooters on PlayStation
Click to expand...
I think that would then kill the HW too and with it their PSN+ cash cow. Not enough incentive beyond wanting to stop making HW to do day one on PC :/.
 
It's like thinking just because cutting off a finger is the best way forward with frostbite, that it's such a brilliant idea that everyone is chopping a finger just because.
 
Mibu no ookami said:
The problem is that Phil Spencer isn't saying this genuinely. He's doing this out of necessity. It's not like he believes any of this deep down. He's been given marching orders.

Unilateral disarmament for lack of a better phrase as it is so baked into the idea of console wars, will result in a completely different industry.

As a software developer you might not have to worry today about the health of a specific platform, but it is the platform holders responsibility to worry about that not only for today, but for tomorrow.

When all these Xbox games start coming to PS and Switch, the Xbox platform is going to crumble and that will have an impact on the industry. It just will.
Click to expand...
Wait are you trying to tell me that video game companies aren't our friends and only do things that benefit themselves? I'm in complete shock right now! Phil isn't just doing this to be a swell guy???
 
In other words "just buy anything but a Xbox if you want to play Xbox games" lol

Why waste money on a platform that is literally killing itself. Anyone is a fool to by a series console or Microsoft's next iteration(if they don't scrap it due to no return on investment).
 
Effigenius said:
Wait are you trying to tell me that video game companies aren't our friends and only do things that benefit themselves? I'm in complete shock right now! Phil isn't just doing this to be a swell guy???
Click to expand...

It's not about friendship.

It's about the difference between being a publisher and a platform holder.

While there can be some overlap, they aren't the same thing and conflating the two as he is doing here is misguided.
 
Panajev2001a said:
I think that would then kill the HW too and with it their PSN+ cash cow. Not enough incentive beyond wanting to stop making HW to do day one on PC :/.
Click to expand...
I think there is still an enormous appeal to a $500 box you can bring home and put under your TV and play all these games on

PlayStation is a dominate force in this space and I don't see those numbers changing drastically even if they did put their games on PC

Just my 2 cents anyhow
 
It all becomes 100% transparent when people say things like this but postface it with "but it's ok for Nintendo to continue to continue to make their games 100% exclusive to their platform".

People just need to come to terms with the fact that Microsoft are only doing this because they managed to fuck up to an unimaginable degree, and they have ultimately decided to use the resources they've built and acquired over the years to continue to make money instead of selling anything of worth off and shutting down.

People who were once fans of a console hardware brand now need to become fans of a multiplatform publisher. I know it doesn't have the same ring to it, but hey, there have been plenty of stans for the likes of Ubisoft over the years.
 
Last edited:
When he says "Steam Boxes" is he simply referring to Steam Decks and the handhelds in a general way? Or has he had time with a Valve dev kit or prototype and knows something we don't?
 
Last edited:
Xbox as a console is irrelevant to the market. It's not a strategy, it's the only thing they can do at this point besides burning more of Microsoft money. You know you have a loser argument when you put Xbox and PS on the table and forget Nintendo, which does exactly what you are spouting here (saying it's no big deal).
 
GHG said:
It all becomes 100% transparent when people say things like this but postface it with "but it's ok for Nintendo to continue to continue to make their games 100% exclusive to their platform".

People just need to come to terms with the fact that Microsoft are only doing this because they managed to fuck up to an unimaginable degree, and they have ultimately decided to use the resources they've built and acquired over the years to continue to make money instead of selling anything of worth off and shutting down.

People who were once fans of a console hardware brand now need to become fans of a multiplatform publisher. I know it doesn't have the same ring to it, but hey, there have been plenty of stans for the likes of Ubisoft over the years.
Click to expand...
I think what he is saying makes sense, Sony and Microsoft are nearly the same spec wise. Nintendo stays behind. Nintendo takes a risk in a way, but it pays off for them because of great first party games.
I could see a world where Sony and Microsoft just publish on PC and Nintendo is the only console left at retail and still have physical games. You have a pc and why not grab the only console on the market for its exclusives and the myriad of indies that would probably work just as well on the system as on pc. Nintendo would probably thrive even more if they were the last one standing, retailers would probably be happy to have to only dedicate space for one console and its games.
 
Last edited:
nowhat said:
Wasn't the dev quite happy to suck on MS's tit for that sweet gamepass + exclusivity money before?
Click to expand...
They partnered with MS to finance and market their game, at the price of exclusivity and it worked for them. Now they have had success and want to be more available on other platforms. I think that they did things correctly. It really is how things should work when you are small and just starting out. Being an indie on your own with the glut of games on the market nowadays seems like a complete uphill battle.
 
Sorcerer said:
They partnered with MS to finance and market their game, at the price of exclusivity and it worked for them. Now they have had success and want to be more available on other platforms. I think that they did things correctly. It really is how things should work when you are small and just starting out. Being an indie on your own with the glut of games on the market nowadays seems like a complete uphill battle.
Click to expand...
Sure, but this seems just a tad hypocritical. But as you said, it probably worked out (at the time) very well for them.
 
Last edited:
Sorcerer said:
I think what he is saying makes sense, Sony and Microsoft are nearly the same spec wise. Nintendo stays behind. Nintendo takes a risk in a way, but it pays off for them because of great first party games. I could see a world where Sony and Microsoft just publish on PC and Nintendo is the only console left at retail and still have physical games. You have a pc and why not grab the only console on the market for its exclusives and the myriad of indies that would probably work just as well on the system as on pc. Nintendo would probably thrive even more if they were the last one standing, retailers would be happy to have to only dedicate space for one console and its games.
Click to expand...

Sounds like what you want to happen instead of what is actually happening.

Here's whats actually happening:
  • If you are a platform holder one of the primary ways you make money is not from selling exclusive games, but rather the royalties you earn from everyone who purchases your hardware buying games/expansions/microtransactions on the store.
  • Exclusive games are the way that you drive adoption of your hardware (which is typically sold at a loss or cost-price)
  • The reason this hasn't worked for Microsoft in recent years is two fold - they have both failed to create exclusives at the level of quality necessary to drive adoption of their hardware and those who have adopted their hardware tend to spend minimal amounts of money on their store due to gamepass.
This situation is unique to Microsoft, hence the pivot. Microsoft also happen to be in the situation where they have recently purchased 2 of the largest videogames publishers, that's a lot of overhead and a lot of output to manage. Neither Sony or Nintendo have this predicament on their hands.

This idea that it would benefit other platform holders to do the same thing that they are doing is absolute nonsense. A quick glance at just how much money they are raking in from people purchasing games on their platforms shows you as much.
 
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4 said:
They have no real incentive to port their games to Xbox but I do see them being way more active in the PC space and look forward to the day I can play games like Ghost of Yotei day one on PC and still buy shooters on PlayStation
Click to expand...
Looking at the whisper launch of Spider-Man 2 on PC, GaaS may not be the only strategy being wound back.
 
Of course Thomas is going to agree, he wants his games on all platforms so you can make more money.

But in Phil's case, not having exclusive content or games for your console makes your console less valuable and that is a fact.

Xbox consoles are not selling and they couldn't get exclusive games out fast enough to turn the ship around so they are going 3rd party… this is what is happening but Phil doesn't want to just say this because the truth sucks.
 
Phil 2 years ago: "Starfield will be exclusive to platforms where Starfield exists"

Phil 1 year ago: "We are porting 4 games only."

Phil now: "There are no red line on any of our games."

To be fair to Phil, he has bosses and marching to orders to follow. Satya and co decided to wave the white flag and transition to a massive publisher, which might be the smart move given how much sheer payroll they are responsible for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Thomas Mahler (CEO of Moon Studios): The Ori series has now sold more than 15 Million copies
Sales-Age 
31
1K
Woopah replied
Phil Spencer's Legacy as told by Phil Spencer
2 3
106
6K
Negotiator replied
  • Locked
  • Poll
Are you concerned over Phil Spencer's declining health?
13
910
Mod of War replied
Game Pass Is "Not For Everybody," says Phil Spencer
News Business  3 4 5 6 7
326
11K
Bumblebeetuna replied
Xbox boss Phil Spencer reiterates Switch 2 support: ‘I’m a big believer in Nintendo’
News  2
71
2K
Fabieter replied
Top Bottom