Yeah, he is wrong with that attitude, can you imagine how many consoles GTA 6 would shift if it was only coming out on 1 system, sales would skyrocket, he is releasing games for gamepass that haven't attracted more subscribers that also won't sell on their own at the higher prices they keep charging, that's why Xbox isn't making enough money and its on Phil Spencer i just want better new games to buy and play.
Agreed completely.
And yet people accuse Sony of not taking risks despite them shelving aside old IPs to create new ones.
Indeed. They take plenty of risks, and generally exhibit an awareness of when it is time to move on with a particular property.
People and media are acting like Phily guy was not in charge of something at Xbox before Don Mattrick. But at leas Don gave us a very steady amount of launch titles for One, layed down at least some of the future games and fostered some 3rd party relations.
In his 10 year tenure Phil made Platform no. 2 a distant third w/o any resemblance of pipeline, rhyme or reason. He lost mindshare on every market except for maybe US. GAF is blaming PS5 for lack of first party, but Sony was smart enough to barrage us with games from partners. And honestly, with Rise of Ronin, Stellar Blade or Rebirth I don't care who exactly made my PS5-only game. It's still a stellar (lol) PS5-only game and way too much games for my gaming time budget.
With Xbox, after Mattrick's influence dissolved along with legendary studios like Lionhead we've got shining beacons of AAA quality like Halo Infinite, Forza Motorsport, Redfall, Starfield and Grounded (nice game but not a platform-seller by any means). They've lost a lot of organic partners they've made over the years, including Epic, Bungie, Moon Studios (No Rest for the Witcked went with 2k) and Playdead. We're at the point where niche games and Japanese titles will just skip the platform if they are not offered some sort of huge cheque (looking at you, Sega). In hindsight, there were no single correct descision during Phil's tenure. Everything he started ended up either broken (343, T10, Coalition) or not working out (Gamepass Economy, stealing CoD from Sony, panic-buying Starfield along with BGS).
The perfect illustration of Phil Spencer as a forward thinker is Xbox One X Cyberpunk 2077 Limited Edition. You know, the one you can't run Phantom Liberty on and where CDPR/MS were forced to send some sorry codes for duped buyers.
I actually like Halo Infinite more than most, but I'm interested in seeing going forward if they can recognize very obvious faults, that can be easily corrected with very obvious solutions
that they already own. There is no better example here than the interior level design once again being boring, repetitive, monotonous slogs. They even recreate the worst parts of Halo 2 and Halo 4's gondola rides, only.... worse. Even bringing a battery along from one optional side room to another doesn't get you a Spartan Core - just a rocket launcher and sniper rifle that are basically useless in the proximity of the combat taking place. There's several other very specific problems with the game, but I'll stay focused on this for a particular reason: we should never see indoor levels this bad in a Halo game ever again.
An agile, dexterous, well run, half intelligent company would realize, "oh right, we own id Software now" (yes, I'm aware nothing about the Bethesda acquisition would have had much impact on Infinite's development, which going by the credits, was the world's largest outsourcing festival). But you own them
now, and you could have them lend the expertise that resulted in so many great levels in Doom 2016 (can't comment on Eternal, just kinda "noped" out of it quickly). Have those level designs remote in from Texas. Shack 'em up in the most expensive hotel in Redmond at night between office visits to 343. Just do.... something. If the 9% achievement completion rate for beating the game on
any difficulty, combined with the seemingly shitcanned
Halo: The Endless expansion isn't ringing alarm bells, then just keep it as MTX heavy multiplayer shooter #27 going forward.
Care to elaborate beyond a drive-by response?
Other than ownership rights, which I wholly agree is an issue (but is also not limited to Game Pass itself), how is it “anti-consumer”?
Game Pass, and especially Game Pass Ultimate, favors the consumer to its own detriment for all the reasons I listed above.
I do not find Game Pass "anti consumer" in any regard. Players are free to look at what's on offer, consider the cost, and measure against their existing options (which for most of us, is a pretty monumental number of games already owned across a variety of platforms). To me it is simply the digital descendant of running to Blockbuster or subscribing to GameFly. I do think it has ended up poorly positioned in a few ways:
01. It really should have been introduced earlier in the Xbox One product cycle, 2014 to be precise. Yeah, it might have had some of the similar growing pains of "wow this first year of PS+ games on PS4 really sucks because they know people are signing up just to play Call of Duty online". But it also could have been a great jumping off point for "available day one one on game pass", perhaps benefitting games like Sunset Overdrive. And Microsoft has always had the check book to have made it, at least in some cases, the most cost effective way for gamers to keep up with third party games (not that 2014 was particularly fantastic in that regard). Follow that up with some Halo, Gears, and other franchises that had yet to be driven into a lot of people's "indifference" column, and you might have had a winning hand. They launched it on June 1, 2017, and at that point, even the people who were inclined to purchase an Xbox One already had a pretty healthy library of games to play, particularly if you also owned a gaming PC and a PS4. There's also the fact that early on that you could jump in for a few months at a time, at cost
substantially less than $16.99 per month, and play through games like Observer_, Hellblade, and others.
02. ~$203 annually just doesn't click with people who either play the same F2P games all year and don't require it, or the aforementioned crowd who have enough games on their bookshelf, in their bedroom closet, or perhaps even stuffed into Rubbermaid bins in their garage to put a Funcoland circa 1996 to shame. I'm not talking about anyone in particular here.
03. It puts less popular, non F2P games in a weird economic spot. A good example here is a game that was actually on Game Pass at one point, but no longer: Outriders. This game had some genuine effort put it. No predatory MTX practices. A pretty generous level of customization on already acquired cosmetics. No aspects of the shipped product being paywalled. By any measure, it should have been to Gears what Destiny is to Halo. Doesn't hurt that the development team actually made Gears Judgment. It also basically got dragged into shit village once the classic "XBL Gold" was folded into Game Pass. Long story short, this was an Alan Wake 2 esque situation where the game didn't reach a sales threshold for royalties to be paid out to the People Can Fly (feel free to update me on the AW2 situation if that has changed in the past few weeks), the game was never
remotely been tuned for single player, and no bot AI was added for two additional characters to tag along, and at the very least, draw
some of the comedic volume of bullets that head in your direction every time you enter an area. Too many player levels, world tiers, side missions, main missions, or accolade farming endeavors for the game to ever have prayer at pairing players through the match making beacons before each mission. It also raises an obvious question for some people: "why stick with this if the $16.99 per month grants me access to games I'd otherwise be paying full price for?". So you're left with a game where ~70% of players never dealt one million damage (I got the accolade for ten million damage in roughly 3.5 hours), 50% of players never beat the first boss, and like AW2, you've got a publisher pocket fishing with an expansion that the base product arguably cannot justify the cost of based on its own performance. This is perhaps a hyper specific example, but I cannot recall a potentially great, and quite content rich game, getting reamed from so many directions. Publisher overconfidence, a $40 expansion for game that didn't really justify the cost of it, a developer never patching the game to at least be more amenable to solo play, and yeah, Game Pass economics all combined to kill the game. A tragic loss for the medium? Nah. But if they had been pulling
this shit when The Division games came out, I'd likely have never played my favorite co-op franchise of all time. They need to get this sorted before some genuinely brilliant games get ripped to shreds by a "Game Pass for online / $70 launch price / expansion we may not even have enough players to populate / aggressive MTX" radiation stew.
04. Some of the best "bang for your buck" aspects, like the Yakuza games, are thoroughly nuked when you can get the first six games for a combined $19.99 on PSN during a sale. A mere three bucks extra to actually own the games, play them at a comfortable pace, and not get stuck renewing a service you might have otherwise been done with just so can finish the last ten hours of game (before it eventually gets yanked anyway).
TL;DR - Great idea. Horrible introductory timing. Exceedingly diminished "value" when sales are taken into account. Terrible impact on less popular games that require the subscription to function as intended. There's a few potential fixes, not the least of which would be having the trove of developers they own work on some good 9 - 12 hour, non predatory games that you move on from when finished, the Call of Duty Campaign library (this one is at least highly likely), etc. But again, there's no common sense being exhibited across varying parts of the Xbox division. Game Pass turns seven on June 1, I'm not optimistic in it existing for another seven years in its current form, in the market conditions it currently exists in.
Xbox’s fate has been six feet under when they rested on their laurels the second half of the 360s life. Gears and halo gave them this huge boost early and since then it’s been stumble after stumble. I always buy both consoles and PlayStation has consistently had FAR better exclusives. It’s not even close. Nothing is going to fix that besides actual GREAT games.
Another excellent point. They got complacent. At one point their "flagship" release schedule for
eleven consecutive years consisted of:
2006 - Gears of War
2007 - Halo 3
2008 - Gears of War 2
2009 - Halo 3 ODST
2010 - Halo Reach
2011 - Gears of War 3 / Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary
2012 - Halo 4
2013 - Gears of War Judgment
2014 - Halo 2 Anniversary
2015 - Halo 5 Guardians / Gears of War Ultimate Edition
2016 - Gears of War 4
I'm not even including any of the strategy games from either franchise, since I'd hope those were not intended or expected to be flagship releases in their respective years of publication. And feel free to drop the two remasters if you prefer. This is a "holy fucking shit" level of predictability. And after a bit of breathing room we got:
2019 - Gears 5
2021 - Halo Infinite
So beyond the eleven consecutive years, you've got either Halo or Gears (or both) as the big release for
14 out of 18 years, dating back to Halo 2, and concluding with Halo Infinite. Nuts. And I've played all of them besides Gears of War 4. 2016 was a busy year for gaming. Time for some variety, fellas.