Phil Spencer Interview: Redfall Reviews, Activision Deal - Kinda Funny Xcast Ep. 137

[eastmen]

I've said it multiple times over a long time.

1. Brand rot via not marketing in many places other platforms forced themselves into through grit, and failing basic standards in many countries Xbox officially claims to already be in.

Ask any tier 3 country and they will tell you many times they can't even get basic support in their own languages let alone the treatment the English world gets, let alone any other kind of support outside of maybe being able to buy the console (although most times not even being able to do that)

The fact that priority is so skewed towards the US and the UK absolutely hurts Xboxs reach and it's not as if they simply can't do it. They sold 1.5 million consoles in Japan off of aggressive marketing and getting devs to make Japanese games on 360, yet now they claim they can't even support a single studio? When they themselves defunded and shut down a big portion of the Japanese Xbox branch years ago? Don't buy it.

2. Dev rot letting many of their own studios operate as inefficiently as possible and go through as many problems as possible.

343 is just the most vocal public issue. Rare had been languishing for many years without much to show for themselves and barely put out sea of thieves. If Japan studio had operated like that they would have been canned years before.

Where as it seems besides the coalition and turn 10, none of the devs MS has owned for decades pre buying spree even exist and anything we have seen of the devs they have bought post 2018 has been vaporware that has not been seen beyond a single trailer.

To think they would be in an even worse position without the Bethesda aqusition they just made a few years ago is mind boggling. Why has the initiative just been allowed to go on without showing literally anything to the public of note? Why has the coalition been the one forced to help other dev studios with projects when they are one of the only ones consistently putting out games?

Why haven't many of these teams been forced back on track, split up, refunded and restaffed years ago? Sony has their teams working double duty on projects separating themselves into smaller teams to churn out more content. Why isn't MS doing that?

I can only imagine what this year would look like for them if they didn't own Bethesda. And that isn't a justification for the aqusition of Bethesda but an condemnation of Xbox studios management up until that point and still today. Even with all those studios in 2018 it took buying a pub of that size to even get any content when it was content that would be on the market regardless. Just not exclusive.

Don't say MS cant fix anything I have mentioned here. They are a trillion dollar software company, worth 10 times as much as their most direct competitor in the gaming space. They make more money just existing for a few months than Sony or Nintendo do an entire year. They have the resources. The problems are within

1) I am in the USA and often can't get basic support in my country. It's all coming out of India and that goes with almost all companies

2) You haven't actually shown this to be the case. Redfall is MS's lowest rated game , all their other releases are above a 70 and I believe in either 2020 or 2021 they were the highest rated publisher for metacritic.

You point to 343 but Halo infinite is highly rated with a fantastic single player and a constantly improving multiplayer.

Rare has released Rare Reply in 2015 , Sea of Theives in 2018 and surpased 10m players with it , they also released Battle todes in 2018 and are currently working on Everwild. They seem to be on a fine Candence of releasing titles. They also do a lot of work on the xbox dashboard.

I also listed in another post about all the studios MS bought. They had all just or shortly after the purchase released titles. They are all continuing to operate with their normal Candence of releasing games every 4-5 years

You can read the summary I posted here https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...-funny-xcast-ep-137.63259/page-6#post-2299266

Why would you split up or remove companies that are functioning properly ? The majority of MS's purchases before bethesda were smaller studios that released titles the year they were purchased. It takes time to release games and if the companies were able to expand and increase the scope of their new games vs previous ones they would obviously need to take a bit more time.


You can only imagine what this year would look like for them if they didn't own X. I can say the same about another company. What would this generation look like for them without their recent purchases. We would only have a remake of two decade old game perhaps

 

[iroboto]

Don't say MS cant fix anything I have mentioned here. They are a trillion dollar software company, worth 10 times as much as their most direct competitor in the gaming space. They make more money just existing for a few months than Sony or Nintendo do an entire year. They have the resources. The problems are within

They can and are working towards it. No one says they aren’t going to even try. They are definitely trying.

But using their performance in managing their studios shouldn’t be used to gatekeep whether they should be allowed to merge. As you said, if it were for Bethseda they would be dead. And that would be true because that’s how long it takes to build up a studio from scratch to produce a title.

Decisions were made at the end of 360 days to toss all their first party out. Not sure why, but that’s what they did. The acquisitions are to rectify that mistake, but they want to get back into the game NOW, not 15 years from now. If they fall entirely irrelevant after this generation I am not sure if they would pursue this much further. It would be easier to cheaper to toss the studios and just be a provider for cloud infrastructure for gaming.

They very much are trying to stay relevant while working through making better games. Maybe Phil has to go? Who knows. He did his job saving Xbox and turning it around, now they need to focus on achieving the next step or fall back into death.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Microsoft have had a lot of different visions for Xbox and I think that has contributed to their difficulties in attracting and retaining returning customers consistently.

That's a really good point. OXB established OXB as a solid machine. It sold well enough in the three countires MS actually bothered with, the English speaking ones, and sold on the merit of its games and console features (graphics!). 360 then went toe-to-toe with PS3. Had MS just kept XBO a games console and given their established 80 million 360 users a BC-compatible games machine with great games, instead of coming out the gates with a voice-activated TV entertainment complexotron, they'd probably be established a uniform third player. Spencer says gamers don't change ecosystem. He had 80 million XB ecosystem players who did change, because MS failed to give them a product to make them want to stay.

Of course, what he's saying now is probably true. There's little reason for people to switch despite a few great titles. Not many PS5 owners are going to switch to Nintendo because of their exclusives, and vice versa. However, that's ignoring

1) the multi-console market where, if you become the preferred machine, you get the majority content sales. I've seen gamers say "I own both PS5 and XBX and I barely use ***".
They buy a machine for the exclusives and then stick to the one with the best experience. Get PS5 owners buying XBX for the killer exclusives and then prioritising it over PS5 because of GP or something.

and 2) new users! People who aren't one or the other buying into an ecosystem for the first time. That might include NSW owners wanting a new, better TV experience. The more you let your brand slide, the harder it becomes to attract new users as you lose word-of-mouth recommendation which counts for a lot, though thankfully less so with cross-plat gaming.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

IMO Phil is playing this Redfall thing in a way that will soften hearts for the merger. If they get around the CMA the messaging will quickly turn to telling Xbox fans that ABK games are going to be critical to competing with Sony and that they're still in the race.

Well played Phil. I like that guy.

On the issue of game quality: Not withstanding the lackluster Redfall; Gears Tactics, Flight Sim, Forza Horizon 5, Halo Infinite, Psychonauts 2, Grounded, Pentiment, and Age of Empires 2 were all really excellent releases.

I can admit that HFW, GT7, Miles Morales, R&C and Ragnorok is a better list for most gamers, but MS isn't out of the game, even without the ABK deal. It's going to take time to get more things out. That's what you get for dumping 1st party for 5+ years.

 

[chris1515]

IMO Phil is playing this Redfall thing in a way that will soften hearts for the merger. If they get around the CMA the messaging will quickly turn to telling Xbox fans that ABK games are going to be critical to competing with Sony and that they're still in the race.

Well played Phil. I like that guy.

On the issue of game quality: Not withstanding the lackluster Redfall; Gears Tactics, Flight Sim, Forza Horizon 5, Halo Infinite, Psychonauts 2, Grounded, Pentiment, and Age of Empires 2 were all really excellent releases.

I can admit that HFW, GT7, Miles Morales, R&C and Ragnorok is a better list for most gamers, but MS isn't out of the game, even without the ABK deal. It's going to take time to get more things out. That's what you get for dumping 1st party for 5+ years.

Consoles is not important for CMA. They blocked because of the cloud not console market.

 

[Nesh]

That's a really good point. OXB established OXB as a solid machine. It sold well enough in the three countires MS actually bothered with, the English speaking ones, and sold on the merit of its games and console features (graphics!). 360 then went toe-to-toe with PS3. Had MS just kept XBO a games console and given their established 80 million 360 users a BC-compatible games machine with great games, instead of coming out the gates with a voice-activated TV entertainment complexotron, they'd probably be established a uniform third player. Spencer says gamers don't change ecosystem. He had 80 million XB ecosystem players who did change, because MS failed to give them a product to make them want to stay.

Of course, what he's saying now is probably true. There's little reason for people to switch despite a few great titles. Not many PS5 owners are going to switch to Nintendo because of their exclusives, and vice versa. However, that's ignoring

1) the multi-console market where, if you become the preferred machine, you get the majority content sales. I've seen gamers say "I own both PS5 and XBX and I barely use ***".
They buy a machine for the exclusives and then stick to the one with the best experience. Get PS5 owners buying XBX for the killer exclusives and then prioritising it over PS5 because of GP or something.

and 2) new users! People who aren't one or the other buying into an ecosystem for the first time. That might include NSW owners wanting a new, better TV experience. The more you let your brand slide, the harder it becomes to attract new users as you lose word-of-mouth recommendation which counts for a lot, though thankfully less so with cross-plat gaming.

I believe it's all up to the perspective from which the upper management possibly sees XBOX's part.
For Sony Playstation was and is a business in its own. Then they saw it as a bridge to other forms of entertainment and transform it to an all in one device.
For MS, XBOX was a product they had to make to support an existing vision and prevent competition from seizing that vision away from them.
For Sony Playstation is a main foundation. For MS it is just one of the small pillars that comprise MS's ecosystem.

I think a contributing factor of that is possibly Sony's divisions having a more independent outlook and having an identity as separate businesses, whereas MS acts more as one company.
Sony's fragmentation especially before PS4, was one of the reasons why they lost so many opportunities integrating their business offerings into their products. The good thing is that a successful division can focus on what they can do best without having some other division or some upper management making decisions about it because they have some other vision in mind.
MS on the other hand is very very good at aligning the whole corporation towards a goal and unify its business models (hence you see MS integrating pretty much their products and offering complete solutions where in one way or another one business contributes and compliments another). But focusing too much on the forest misses the focus a particular division might have or might need.

Which I think it is the case with XBOX. The One fully reflects the original vision MS had when they decided they wanted to enter the console space in the first place and hence why they completely lost the focus that their 360 consumers desired. And it is the same reason why I suspect they didnt build successfully their internal gaming production. Phil's interview reflects in part how small XBOX is to the whole picture. But for Sony, Playstation is a core business.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Consoles is not important for CMA. They blocked because of the cloud not console market.

Well, that's the official reason....

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Well, that's the official reason....

I know this will be weird for those used to how things work in the US, but that's not how it works in Europe. It's like these countries have existed a thousand years and got all the bullshit out of our systems.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

LOL. It's funny that you think that after two World Wars. The arrogance astounds me. I'm Canadian btw and believe corruption exists everywhere in the world to some degree or another. The UK is no different.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

DSoup's historical reference is daft, but the point is there are independent organisations that are making their own minds up and aren't politically or money driven. There's no reason to think the CMA's point isn't honest, even if misguided or ludicrous in some people's eyes. For those people given the job of safeguarding the gaming market, they looked at the console space and saw no issue like all the other regulators. But they did also take a look at the future and cloud gaming and felt there a need to protect that market so it could develop more naturally/organically when it develops in its own time-frame without one overarching organisation casting such a broad shadow others cannot grow. And they have precedent as already mentioned.

Could they be corrupt? Well, sure. But then you are pitching cynicism against rational logic. At that point we can dismiss any- and every-thing anyone says as a lie covering up their corruption. One is free to cynically dismiss any ideas they want, but it makes for lousy intellectual debate and isn't a healthy mindset for discussing here.

 

[eastmen]

DSoup's historical reference is daft, but the point is there are independent organisations that are making their own minds up and aren't politically or money driven. There's no reason to think the CMA's point isn't honest, even if misguided or ludicrous in some people's eyes. For those people given the job of safeguarding the gaming market, they looked at the console space and saw no issue like all the other regulators. But they did also take a look at the future and cloud gaming and felt there a need to protect that market so it could develop more naturally/organically when it develops in its own time-frame without one overarching organisation casting such a broad shadow others cannot grow. And they have precedent as already mentioned.

Could they be corrupt? Well, sure. But then you are pitching cynicism against rational logic. At that point we can dismiss any- and every-thing anyone says as a lie covering up their corruption. One is free to cynically dismiss any ideas they want, but it makes for lousy intellectual debate and isn't a healthy mindset for discussing here.

Since they are independent there isn't much in the way of control over them either. You'd have to investigate each one of them to see if there aren't kick backs of some type happening. Look at the USA supreme court they went after one justice but it turns out all of them are doing the same thing. Look at the current president and all of his and his sons pay for play schemes.

 

[iroboto]

DSoup's historical reference is daft, but the point is there are independent organisations that are making their own minds up and aren't politically or money driven. There's no reason to think the CMA's point isn't honest, even if misguided or ludicrous in some people's eyes. For those people given the job of safeguarding the gaming market, they looked at the console space and saw no issue like all the other regulators. But they did also take a look at the future and cloud gaming and felt there a need to protect that market so it could develop more naturally/organically when it develops in its own time-frame without one overarching organisation casting such a broad shadow others cannot grow. And they have precedent as already mentioned.

Could they be corrupt? Well, sure. But then you are pitching cynicism against rational logic. At that point we can dismiss any- and every-thing anyone says as a lie covering up their corruption. One is free to cynically dismiss any ideas they want, but it makes for lousy intellectual debate and isn't a healthy mindset for discussing here.

They may not understand the console market. But that’s technically not a terrible
thing because it removes bias. That being said it’s on the parties to make their case, and perhaps MS didn’t make a good one or Sony was just really good at selling COD.

But certain things like saying COD is a critical input for cloud or console to succeed is probably where some strong knowledge would help. We are unlikely to endure another 10 releases of COD and it still being a “critical input”.

It’s not a sports game where nothing changes. A couple bad flops in a row or a new type of FPS genre that COD can’t adapt to, and it’s over.

A decision was made, I don’t want to call it a purposeful block unless proven to be. I don’t like the call, but I’ll accept it. MS and ABK will need to appeal it, and I’d be okay if they overturn or fail. A decision is made, companies can at least move forward.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Since they are independent there isn't much in the way of control over them either. You'd have to investigate each one of them to see if there aren't kick backs of some type happening. Look at the USA supreme court they went after one justice but it turns out all of them are doing the same thing. Look at the current president and all of his and his sons pay for play schemes.

Yes, technically. Potentially everyone in the country is taking backhanders. But the public UK corruption scene is pretty bowled over by Prime Ministers claiming for wallpaper and whatnot. Most horrific known corruption is nepotism with government contracts going to mates and party donators getting knighthoods. It's not like there's massive history and precedent to think corruption runs riot and 8/10 regulators are on the take and with a cool £2 million dropped in their account by a Mr. Ynos Mignag to a Seychelles account, they come up with some bullshit excuse.

Again, you have to go with the evidence-less cynicism theory, assuming guilt without the proof of innocence. Unless there's a clear pattern of far-fetched blocking prviding some sort of evidence of external manipulation, it's just a faith based belief and not logical reasoning.

 

[eastmen]

Yes, technically. Potentially everyone in the country is taking backhanders. But the public UK corruption scene is pretty bowled over by Prime Ministers claiming for wallpaper and whatnot. Most horrific known corruption is nepotism with government contracts going to mates and party donators getting knighthoods. It's not like there's massive history and precedent to think corruption runs riot and 8/10 regulators are on the take and with a cool £2 million dropped in their account by a Mr. Ynos Mignag to a Seychelles account, they come up with some bullshit excuse.

Again, you have to go with the evidence-less cynicism theory, assuming guilt without the proof of innocence. Unless there's a clear pattern of far-fetched blocking prviding some sort of evidence of external manipulation, it's just a faith based belief and not logical reasoning.

The issue in and of itself is what does the UK gain from the CMA blocking this purchase ? Neither company is happy with them which means there very well likely could be less investment from these companies and their partners into the UK which is already wracked with problems from brexit. More so its over a market that hasn't really grown since its inception and may never amount to anything .

Like I've said before if the EU says yes then the UK will on appeal also say yes. There is already outs built into this cloud reasoning that let them look tough while caving. UK wont want to be the only country saying no

 

[Deleted member 11852]

LOL. It's funny that you think that after two World Wars.

People fighting over resources, or hatred because of race or religious beliefs is not going to change any time soon, but the assertion that the UK regulator is somehow particularly motivated to thwarting an acquisition in a market which is basically toys, is ridiculous.

 

[Nesh]

The issue in and of itself is what does the UK gain from the CMA blocking this purchase ? Neither company is happy with them which means there very well likely could be less investment from these companies and their partners into the UK which is already wracked with problems from brexit. More so its over a market that hasn't really grown since its inception and may never amount to anything .

Like I've said before if the EU says yes then the UK will on appeal also say yes. There is already outs built into this cloud reasoning that let them look tough while caving. UK wont want to be the only country saying no

The excuse of "investments" ignoring possible public costs, damage to other businesses and negative externalities usually hints at corruption too.
First of all none of us have read the 400 page report regarding CMA's decision so we are making a lot of assumptions about CMA's mistake (or not). Secondly there is either the possibility of error from their part or something that legitimately concerned them more than it has concerned other regulators.
There is barely much about this merger improving the UK economy in any substantial way based on what I see either.
It is also just as possible to bribe regulators to give a green light for an acquisition. There is no way to say that for sure and it is in the realm of speculation just as much as claiming the CMA was bribed to do so.

 

[fehu]

LOL. It's funny that you think that after two World Wars. The arrogance astounds me. I'm Canadian btw and believe corruption exists everywhere in the world to some degree or another. The UK is no different.

Canadian? We saved your ass two times during WW2 against the mexicans! Is this your gratitude?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The issue in and of itself is what does the UK gain from the CMA blocking this purchase ?

A future balanced, competitive cloud gaming landscape with several players providing good competition and choice. That's the intention and motivation, and what regulation is supposed to be about (according to the CMA anyway).

Neither company is happy with them which means there very well likely could be less investment from these companies and their partners into the UK which is already wracked with problems from brexit.

That's an argument to let big business do whatever they want because they've got the money, which long-term means a corporate led world where the companies, not the governments, have the power. Syndicate was a cool game but I don't want to live it.

 

[iroboto]

Canadian? We saved your ass two times during WW2 against the mexicans! Is this your gratitude?

Lol what?
Mexicans? They can freely immigrate here and they are never here. They don’t like the cold

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Pretty sure that's a joke about the whole "everyone was fighting for their lives and freedoms, but now claims they were saving everyone else and were doing this country a favour and they are indebted..." arguments that come up with WWII.

This whole line of history and national-development is too OT to be healthy and we should just acknowledge different countries operate differently.