Just doing some digging on MS Gaming's acquisitions and I sincerely think the current leadership needs to be changed(Phil, Matt Booty, etc). Just watch this video of Matt Booty with Double Fine. You can clearly see a guy that stepped in and doesnt align with the culture, just subtly bossing around. Its no wonder they have been delivering terrible titles time after time(Starfield, Halo Infinite, Redfall were honestly not good not modern at all). Somehow MS managed to throw out most of the great hires(baby) along with Don Mattrick(the bath water) and kept the pricks. What a disaster. I wouldn't be enthusiastic to work under a person like Matt Booty if this video is a typifying example of him. The character of the leadership plays a huge role in the output/morale of the team.
Xbox Business Update Podcast | Xbox Everywhere Direction Discussion
- Thread starter iroboto
- Start date
I didn't say subscriptions won't work nor will never work - only that the comparison with media subscriptions isn't valid and proof of people moving over to music and movie subscription services does not mean everyone, including Sony, will end up on gaming subscription services.
There will always be voices in agreement and voices in dissent. It is never 'everyone' and Spencer has had his detractors regardless what he does. Appeal to popular opinion doesn't make much of a case here.
You're saying they aren't functioning properly. But the evidence is quite the contrary. MS praised their award-winning output, and it's only been a year since that released. At Tango's 14th anniversary a month ago, Sarah Bond said "here's to many more"...one month from axing them. If they aren't functioning properly, do some positive management to bring them back on track. Unless they are that far gone, it's irrecoverable. But, again, MS stated their reasons, that this studio is awesome but they want to focus on big Bethesda IPs.
At this point the "the studio was probably rotten and needed to go" theory is existing in a complete vacuum with no evidence. If there were some insider tweets coming out saying as much, you'd have something. If there was a GlassDoor opinion of the company telling us it's a mess, there'd be something. But presently we have a clear cut explanation that fits the evidence provided by MS themselves. They thought the studio was great, loved its output, a month ago were cheering them on, but want to focus on big IPs now. We also have reports of comments like "Booty reportedly told Xbox employees that the company's studios had been "spread too thin - like 'peanut butter on bread'". Jill Braff, head of Zenimax Studios, reportedly added, "It's hard to support nine studios all across the world with a lean central team with an ever-growing plate of things to do… I think we're about to topple over."
But not one saying Tango was a bad studio with no future. The only evidence I can find explaining a potential justification is the head, Shinji Mikami, leaving a year ago after HiFi Rush, and maybe they couldn't fill his shoes? I'm doing your job for you here, though, actually looking for any justification the studio had to go against the evidence to the contrary.
Mikami was just a supervisor on hi-fi rush. He left because he thought that the company was in good hands and that it secured a future with Microsoft. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.There will always be voices in agreement and voices in dissent. It is never 'everyone' and Spencer has had his detractors regardless what he does. Appeal to popular opinion doesn't make much of a case here.
You're saying they aren't functioning properly. But the evidence is quite the contrary. MS praised their award-winning output, and it's only been a year since that released. At Tango's 14th anniversary a month ago, Sarah Bond said "here's to many more"...one month from axing them. If they aren't functioning properly, do some positive management to bring them back on track. Unless they are that far gone, it's irrecoverable. But, again, MS stated their reasons, that this studio is awesome but they want to focus on big Bethesda IPs.
At this point the "the studio was probably rotten and needed to go" theory is existing in a complete vacuum with no evidence. If there were some insider tweets coming out saying as much, you'd have something. If there was a GlassDoor opinion of the company telling us it's a mess, there'd be something. But presently we have a clear cut explanation that fits the evidence provided by MS themselves. They thought the studio was great, loved its output, a month ago were cheering them on, but want to focus on big IPs now. We also have reports of comments like "Booty reportedly told Xbox employees that the company's studios had been "spread too thin - like 'peanut butter on bread'". Jill Braff, head of Zenimax Studios, reportedly added, "It's hard to support nine studios all across the world with a lean central team with an ever-growing plate of things to do… I think we're about to topple over."
But not one saying Tango was a bad studio with no future. The only evidence I can find explaining a potential justification is the head, Shinji Mikami, leaving a year ago after HiFi Rush, and maybe they couldn't fill his shoes? I'm doing your job for you here, though, actually looking for any justification the studio had to go against the evidence to the contrary.
"Their" here meant from the perspective of stakeholders. As employees that have worked there for some time and delivered great titles, they have a stakeholder interest in the company and maybe even some of them had equity. You can even hear Tim Schafer align with their concerns in the video.
this reminds me of things like well managed football (soccer) teams like Real Madrid or badly managed teams like FC Barcelona, or well managed vs bad managed NBA teams, etc. It's not the brand that it's wrong, it's not that the initial ideas behind it were wrong but who is now in charge.
Hi, I was told by colleagues that insiders gather and post here so I thought I’d contribute myself.
Tango had negotiated contract bonuses for the developers based on game performance. The issue is that their latest title received too much success, especially with the game coming to PS5 and selling well.
Thus, it was cheaper for MS to just fire everybody instead of having to keep the entire studio around and keep paying them. This was confirmed by 2 developers. Also the fact that their engines/games were optimised around the PS5 architecture really rubbed some higher-ups the wrong way, although it was of lesser concern.
Most of the developers knew what was coming and will probably land with Tokyo based developers so that is good news!
Tango had negotiated contract bonuses for the developers based on game performance. The issue is that their latest title received too much success, especially with the game coming to PS5 and selling well.
Thus, it was cheaper for MS to just fire everybody instead of having to keep the entire studio around and keep paying them. This was confirmed by 2 developers. Also the fact that their engines/games were optimised around the PS5 architecture really rubbed some higher-ups the wrong way, although it was of lesser concern.
Most of the developers knew what was coming and will probably land with Tokyo based developers so that is good news!
Without sources, or at least a proven, reliable source like a business journalist with a track record, this is just internet noise I'm afraid.
I’m told Tom Warren knows about it as well but he decided to not write anything about it (even after showing photos of internal tools and whatnot). He tried to get the employee numbers, probably to snitch on them to Microsoft lol. But I am sure other sites will report on it soon
Make a ban bet for it if you are sure.
Cuz it sounds like total made up nonsense to me. Closing an entire studio cuz their game did too well? lol "Yes, let's just shut down a great avenue for us to fix our game quality problem in the long term simply to avoid having to pay a decent one time bonus?"
You do realize that would make Xbox look even more villainous and stupid than they already do, right?
I wouldn't believe this even if Jason Schreier told me in person. Reality can be stupid but that is a step too far.
Let me try to understand this. The argument is that the contractually agreed bonuses outweighed the value of the game?? The game made lots of cash - it was successful. The negotiation meant Tango were to get a large percentage of that. But that'd be a proportion of sales, so the more they need be paid, the better the game was doing. It'd have to have been one of the most ludicrous contracts ever for closing the studio to save more money than it makes. Like "we get a $50,000 bonus each with 5% compound bonuses per $100,000 the game makes."
"Wow, the game's made $10 million"
"Great. We get 50,000 * 1.05^100. That's $6.5M each"
Even then, surely that'd be a negotiation for the next game? I don't see any logic to this rumour.
"Wow, the game's made $10 million"
"Great. We get 50,000 * 1.05^100. That's $6.5M each"
Even then, surely that'd be a negotiation for the next game? I don't see any logic to this rumour.
From another perspective, most companies I've ever worked for, if I use their equipment on company time, they own what I create. This would be par for the course here for most large enterprise policies. I don't think peoples faces are necessarily upset, as most people are just going through the process of learning something. People are used to Tim being the leader of the company, that is familiar. They are not familiar with MS coming in and superseding him. If we saw evidence they were upset here that would have come out post meeting. I think you're just seeing another case here where people are just looking for anything with or without context to pile onto MS.
Part of the reason why there is moderation to stifle this type of behaviour, as you can see, we've not been moderating this discussion because largely, people are upset. And with respect to the many developers on this forum, I'm not going to say anything. But it's not as simple as this discussion has made it, surely most of the commentary around Phil and the Xbox team is incredibly basic. Find another executive that can run Xbox that has 30+ years of experience being there at the start of when Xbox was founded fully understanding all the challenges they've had up to this point. You're not going to find a large list of people there.
Anyway, but in not doing any moderation, we are starting to see needle in a haystack narratives being tossed around and hoping that catches here. This thread is getting entirely random without any proof of anything that is being said. Just a dumping grounds of information without context pointing towards how bad Xbox management is. Let's continue to ignore the last 10 years of developers actually posting positive things about Xbox.
Last edited:
1) buy studio X with developer Y
2) developer Y creates most beloved and highest rated new Microsoft IP in years
3) fire developer Y
4) ????
5) profit
^ this makes more sense to you?
steveOrino
Regular
The schizophrenic nature of the Xbox business combined with gaslighting from leadership is going to lead to this kind of discourse.
I can see this working for them assuming the IP stays. And since the studio doesn't exist, all bonuses are canceled for the studio and go to their former owner for some big short term gains at the expense of potential future projects.
Short term gains for higher ups are the anathema of many private businesses and public planning at large.
Riddlewire
Regular
Microsoft isn't a poor company. Enhanced bonuses to one development studio would get lost in a rounding error on their balance sheet.
As for the other point, I can believe that it irked some of Xbox management. After all, Tango delivered back to back games that performed better on the "competition's" hardware. And, as far as I'm aware, they never fixed Ghostwire Tokyo for Xbox consoles. However, I seriously doubt that would be a reason to close the studio. Maybe an agitated face-to-face, but not studio closure.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
Phil's comments were taken out of context. He was lamenting about how locked to platforms everyone came out of last gen and how great games even don't ensure people will switch platforms. It was all blown out of proportion.
I agree with Ybarra that consistent AAA games are important, but don't agree that a hybrid strategy can't work. I think it's a tough needle to thread, but I don't have a problem with Sony PS users paying for GP Day One games 2-3 years after the fact. Give me Gears 6 on GP in 2026 and put it out as a PS6 launch title in 2028 or 2029. Fine by me. In fact, I think MS should message that to Xbox owners - "You're privileged and get it on GP Day One" and PS users - "Sorry, but you have to pay since Sony won't let us give you GP even though we really want to."
They have to reestablish trust with Xbox fans through consistency though. If hardcore Xbox fans really believe that Sony PS users are getting the late ports of big Xbox GP titles I don't think they'll care in the end, but they have to believe that Xbox is going to thrive. New powerful hardware announced would accomplish that IMO. Show off an amazing Gears 6 and Fable that runs well on X, but really shines on X+ for 2026. Also bring out the M with full S compatibility. That'll shut up the "Xbox is leaving the business" people.
Last edited:
Most "beloved"?. I'm gaming on XBox since 2001 and didn't care about that game at all. That might be just me but "most beloved" sounds a bit hyperbolic
We all don't really know how much that title made, how much running that studio in Japan costs and if they had a promising future game in the pipeline.
At the moment it "appears" more likely to me the studio is collateral damage in MS restructuring Xbox itself. That has surely enough potential for callous silly business decisions for normal people to not really "grasp" but assuming this was some petty action Bobby Kotick is famous for might be a bit stretching to me too.
Similar threads
