Xbox leadership and the Xbox brand evaluation *spawn

[BitByte]

This is completely unrelated but listening to DF on the direct try to blame Don Matrick 13 years later is low key disappointing. Phil Spencer took over the lead of Xbox game studios in late 2009 - early 2010. Coincidentally, that’s when Xbox games took a downturn for the worse. The quality and quantity drastically decreased and started the long loss of creativity that bled into the Xbox one generation. Later in 2014, he took Xbox as a whole after Matrick was canned.

Now if you’re going to try to blame Mattrick for that Xbox one direction, then Phil spencer shares a huge portion of that blame. To attribute it to Don Mattrick alone is frankly unrealistic. Phil was part of the leadership team. So now, Phil Spencer has been very influential in Xbox for 14 years and under his leadership, Xbox has gone full circle in terms of mindshare to the og xbox era levels of mindshare. The games are worse and lack serious quality, the corporate strategy is fighting with itself, the brand is tarnished. I’m sorry but when you’ve had the helm for almost a decade, you can’t keep blaming Matrick.

Look at the launch of the ps3 and the $599/second job debacle. That was almost as bad as play online only. Yet I think it was Jack Trenton who came in and salvaged the situation. Huge investment into software, marketing, corporate structure. Huge risks were made to salvage the situation and just at the end of the gen, ps3 managed to barely outsell the 360. Now compare that to when Spencer took over Xbox. Poor investments into software, no exclusives, improper corporate structure, and poor marketing. Instead, Spencer invested tons into a Gamepass, a no profit service that actively devalues the brand. Investments into the cloud which is dead. People don’t want it, the utilization rate isn’t great. I mean, we’re talking about a guy who ok’d the release of a new console with no new UI, no notable improvements to the controller, no exclusives, no must have software. The difference between Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft is competence. In Nintendo and Sony, Phil Spencer would be long gone because decisions are made based on competence. The same cannot be said about Microsoft.

I get that DF is all chummy with Phil Spencer because of the unique access they get but, there’s no reason to drag Don into this. Nobody asked them to mention Don and it was unnecessary. Reiterating these false tired tropes only adds to the list of questionable comments made by DF that causes one to question the integrity of the firm. It’s at best lazy analysis and at worst maliciously suspect.

 

[Globalisateur]

This is completely unrelated but listening to DF on the direct try to blame Don Matrick 13 years later is low key disappointing. Phil Spencer took over the lead of Xbox game studios in late 2009 - early 2010. Coincidentally, that’s when Xbox games took a downturn for the worse. The quality and quantity drastically decreased and started the long loss of creativity that bled into the Xbox one generation. Later in 2014, he took Xbox as a whole after Matrick was canned.

Now if you’re going to try to blame Mattrick for that Xbox one direction, then Phil spencer shares a huge portion of that blame. To attribute it to Don Mattrick alone is frankly unrealistic. Phil was part of the leadership team. So now, Phil Spencer has been very influential in Xbox for 14 years and under his leadership, Xbox has gone full circle in terms of mindshare to the og xbox era levels of mindshare. The games are worse and lack serious quality, the corporate strategy is fighting with itself, the brand is tarnished. I’m sorry but when you’ve had the helm for almost a decade, you can’t keep blaming Matrick.

Look at the launch of the ps3 and the $599/second job debacle. That was almost as bad as play online only. Yet I think it was Jack Trenton who came in and salvaged the situation. Huge investment into software, marketing, corporate structure. Huge risks were made to salvage the situation and just at the end of the gen, ps3 managed to barely outsell the 360. Now compare that to when Spencer took over Xbox. Poor investments into software, no exclusives, improper corporate structure, and poor marketing. Instead, Spencer invested tons into a Gamepass, a no profit service that actively devalues the brand. Investments into the cloud which is dead. People don’t want it, the utilization rate isn’t great. I mean, we’re talking about a guy who ok’d the release of a new console with no new UI, no notable improvements to the controller, no exclusives, no must have software. The difference between Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft is competence. In Nintendo and Sony, Phil Spencer would be long gone because decisions are made based on competence. The same cannot be said about Microsoft.

I get that DF is all chummy with Phil Spencer because of the unique access they get but, there’s no reason to drag Don into this. Nobody asked them to mention Don and it was unnecessary. Reiterating these false tired tropes only adds to the list of questionable comments made by DF that causes one to question the integrity of the firm. It’s at best lazy analysis and at worst maliciously suspect.

Amen to all of that. Based on his results Spencer should have already being fired along with Mattrick, period. This is what any other entertainment company (like Sony or Nintendo) would have done.

 

[see colon]

This is completely unrelated but listening to DF on the direct try to blame Don Matrick 13 years later is low key disappointing. Phil Spencer took over the lead of Xbox game studios in late 2009 - early 2010. Coincidentally, that’s when Xbox games took a downturn for the worse. The quality and quantity drastically decreased and started the long loss of creativity that bled into the Xbox one generation. Later in 2014, he took Xbox as a whole after Matrick was canned.

Now if you’re going to try to blame Mattrick for that Xbox one direction, then Phil spencer shares a huge portion of that blame. To attribute it to Don Mattrick alone is frankly unrealistic. Phil was part of the leadership team. So now, Phil Spencer has been very influential in Xbox for 14 years and under his leadership, Xbox has gone full circle in terms of mindshare to the og xbox era levels of mindshare. The games are worse and lack serious quality, the corporate strategy is fighting with itself, the brand is tarnished. I’m sorry but when you’ve had the helm for almost a decade, you can’t keep blaming Matrick.

Look at the launch of the ps3 and the $599/second job debacle. That was almost as bad as play online only. Yet I think it was Jack Trenton who came in and salvaged the situation. Huge investment into software, marketing, corporate structure. Huge risks were made to salvage the situation and just at the end of the gen, ps3 managed to barely outsell the 360. Now compare that to when Spencer took over Xbox. Poor investments into software, no exclusives, improper corporate structure, and poor marketing. Instead, Spencer invested tons into a Gamepass, a no profit service that actively devalues the brand. Investments into the cloud which is dead. People don’t want it, the utilization rate isn’t great. I mean, we’re talking about a guy who ok’d the release of a new console with no new UI, no notable improvements to the controller, no exclusives, no must have software. The difference between Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft is competence. In Nintendo and Sony, Phil Spencer would be long gone because decisions are made based on competence. The same cannot be said about Microsoft.

I get that DF is all chummy with Phil Spencer because of the unique access they get but, there’s no reason to drag Don into this. Nobody asked them to mention Don and it was unnecessary. Reiterating these false tired tropes only adds to the list of questionable comments made by DF that causes one to question the integrity of the firm. It’s at best lazy analysis and at worst maliciously suspect.

Is this in the right thread?

 

[BitByte]

Amen to all of that. Based on his results Spencer should have already being fired along with Mattrick, period. This is what any other entertainment company (like Sony or Nintendo) would have done.

I mean, the whole it’s Don Matrick ploy has been ridiculous this whole time. I have to question if any of the people parroting this falsehood have ever worked in corporate. There’s a leadership team and Matrick was the fall guy. To suggest that the others weren’t aware or in support of it was always ridiculous.

To tell you how much Spencer was in support of always online and all digital, he became the first console ceo to launch an always online console with the Xbox one s all digital. He then followed it up with the push to the cloud by diverting series x chips to their cloud infrastructure at the start of the generation. Another wrong move I might add.

The truth of the matter is that anyone trying to say it was all Don Matrick is clearly not paying any attention. He was just the fall guy for a strategy that has continued under Spencer’s leadership. The only part they nixed was always online and only partially.

All Microsoft is trying to do now is pull a windows with Xbox to make it hardware agnostic. They think xCloud along with Gamepass will save them. Unfortunately, that’s exactly the reason why they will forever remain last. Games like media is all about content. You need to continually create the best content because people follow the content. Microsoft is a company with no creativity. They can buy content like Bethesda content, Gears from Epic, Minecraft, but they can’t innovate on them or make great new content.

 

[Flappy Pannus]

This is completely unrelated

It wouldn't be in the DF thread. Mods, maybe move it there.

 

[see colon]

To tell you how much Spencer was in support of always online and all digital, he became the first console ceo to launch an always online console with the Xbox one s all digital.

You can play OneSAD offline if it's your "Home" console.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I mean, the whole it’s Don Matrick ploy has been ridiculous this whole time. I have to question if any of the people parroting this falsehood have ever worked in corporate. There’s a leadership team and Matrick was the fall guy. To suggest that the others weren’t aware or in support of it was always ridiculous.

Aware, yes. In support of it? They may or may not have been. In any company there's always factions that pull in different directions and internally they may fight tooth and nail to alter the direction a company goes with something while publicly they have to state that they are behind it.

In other words, just because someone was there when a division of a company decides to go with X strategy does not mean they were in support of it ... even if they publicly had to speak about it in a positive light. You know, because that's why there are levels of management, the higher the management position the more power they hold over the direction a division goes. Good management will take all input from lower management into consideration, bad management will ignore it. If you want to keep your job then you don't publicly bad mouth or express your opposition to a direction or strategy that the head of your division decides to pursue while it is being implemented/adopted.

That's nothing new. Even at Sony there's infighting over which direction PlayStation should go, what strategy their TV division should adopt, etc. Likewise, there was a lot of infighting at Xbox over GAAS (less of a focus now), microtransactions (almost entirely gone), TV (gone), Always Onine (which only one console now isn't basically always online ... the NSW), etc...

Regards,
SB

 

[BitByte]

You can play OneSAD offline if it's your "Home" console.

Brain fart on my part, I meant to say all digital not always online.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It wouldn't be in the DF thread.

In the DF technical discussion thread? No. Anywhere in the Gaming Technology forum? No.

 

[see colon]

Brain fart on my part, I meant to say all digital not always online.

Zeebo, iQue, Ouya and PSPGo predate it, though.

 

[BitByte]

Aware, yes. In support of it? They may or may not have been. In any company there's always factions that pull in different directions and internally they may fight tooth and nail to alter the direction a company goes with something while publicly they have to state that they are behind it.

That’s most certainly fair but nothing Spencer has done since taking over suggests that he was not in favour of it. The process to reverse the always online decision started with Don. It wasn’t Spencer’s doing so we can’t attribute those changes to him.

In other words, just because someone was there when a division of a company decides to go with X strategy does not mean they were in support of it ... even if they publicly had to speak about it in a positive light. You know, because that's why there are levels of management, the higher the management position the more power they hold over the direction a division goes. Good management will take all input from lower management into consideration, bad management will ignore it. If you want to keep your job then you don't publicly bad mouth or express your opposition to a direction or strategy that the head of your division decides to pursue while it is being implemented/adopted.

Again true but when discussing good Management, Phil Spencer can never be involved. That is except to be used an example and of what bad management looks like. The decline under his tenure has be far worse than under Don’s.

That's nothing new. Even at Sony there's infighting over which direction PlayStation should go, what strategy their TV division should adopt, etc. Likewise, there was a lot of infighting at Xbox over GAAS (less of a focus now), microtransactions (almost entirely gone), TV (gone), Always Onine (which only one console now isn't basically always online ... the NSW), etc...

Regards,
SB

In fighting happens at all companies. The difference is the ability to successfully course correct and employee competence. Microsoft has failed at both.

 

[BitByte]

Zeebo, iQue, Ouya and PSPGo predate it, though.

Hmm, fair point. I forgot about the Ouya and PSPgo. Haven’t heard about the rest.

 

[tuna]

Zeebo, iQue, Ouya and PSPGo predate it, though.

You didn't need to be online to use the PSPGo (which was great btw!). You could download games to the PS3 and then copy them over to you PSP (any model).

 

[see colon]

You didn't need to be online to use the PSPGo (which was great btw!). You could download games to the PS3 and then copy them over to you PSP (any model).

The criteria of the statement had changed when BitByte clarified his claim with...

Brain fart on my part, I meant to say all digital not always online.

Therefore, digital only is what matters. PSPGo is digital only.

 

[orangpelupa]

Someone need to create a deep dive article behind development studios at Microsoft, akin to destiny deep dives articles by Jason schumaker (I'm sure that was not his last name)

It's so baffling that with so many studios, Microsoft still can't make enough games. And the games they do release, got baffling quality.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

85 - 90% scores on major releases like Forza series, Halo Infinte, Starfield, Flight Sim, HiFi Rush, Psychonauts 2 is not bad quality. Lol

If Psychonauts 2 were a Sony exclusive people would lose their minds singing its praises. It's a fantastic game.

Sony hasn't had a much better release cadence, but they get a pass because both machines can play Elden Ring, Cyberpunk, Hogwarts, CoD, Madden, etc.... and Sony went into this generation with a 2:1 ecosystem advantage.

If you think about it anything less than 2:1 this gen is progress for Xbox.

It's obviously not all Don's fault, but Xbox isn't doing as badly as some around here suggest.

 

[BitByte]

85 - 90% scores on major releases like Forza series, Halo Infinte, Starfield, Flight Sim, HiFi Rush, Psychonauts 2 is not bad quality. Lol

If you think Halo and Starfield are anything other than 6/10 to 7/10 scores, I don’t know what to tell you. If you think infinite is only 6 points worse than Halo 3 in rating, then it’s obvious to me that you know nothing of the franchise. The other games while good aren’t going to move the needle for most as sales have proven. Psychonauts 2 is also a multi platform game.

If Psychonauts 2 were a Sony exclusive people would lose their minds singing its praises. It's a fantastic game.

It was playable on ps4/ps5 and no one was losing their minds. I played it via Xbox gamepass and dropped it about halfway through. It was well made but not for me and clearly not for the mass market.

Sony hasn't had a much better release cadence, but they get a pass because both machines can play Elden Ring, Cyberpunk, Hogwarts, CoD, Madden, etc.... and Sony went into this generation with a 2:1 ecosystem advantage.

Wrong again. Sony has had much better releases barring this year when they ran dry. More importantly, they released games when it mattered most to establishing the initial install base. When you start the generation with no good games and release a bunch of underwhelming and creatively bereft sequels, it’s unsurprising that they fail to make an impact.

If you think about it anything less than 2:1 this gen is progress for Xbox.

It's obviously not all Don's fault, but Xbox isn't doing as badly as some around here suggest.

it’s going to greater than 2:1 by the time the gen is over. It’s already > 3:1 in most regions other than US and UK. As a brand, it’s irrelevant and that’s through its actions. Because the genius Phil Spencer told consumers that they don’t need an Xbox to play Xbox games, retailers have proceeded to decrease the retail presence for Xbox. Consumers like myself listened and sold our Xbox. I purchased the series x at launch and sold it after year 1 due to a lack of games. It retailed for $650 in my country, I couldn’t even get $450 on the market. Purchased it again at the end of year 2 and when I sold again, I struggled to get $400 on the market. The brand is as good as dead this generation.

Then after some time reflecting, I realized the biggest problem with Xbox, there’s literally no reason to purchase one. If you buy an Xbox, you subject yourself to a 3rd class experience. First party games can be purchased on pc. Gamepass can be used on pc, steam deck, etc. First party games sometimes come out unoptimized at 30 fps on console while the pc gets 60+ fps. There are no exclusives, they’re all on pc and play better with better graphics. Third party games are often released in an unoptimized state compared to the consoles rivals. Sometimes, 3rd party games don’t even bother to release on the console or release late like Baldurs Gate 3.

Your reward for purchasing an Xbox is being a 3rd class citizen. You don’t get a premium experience that rewards you for playing on Xbox. It’s literally the worst place to play any game. As a result, I just stuck to my 4090 pc. Once my 3 year gamepass ultimate sub lapses, I’m canceling and not renewing again. If I can’t be bothered to pay for a game, I can’t be bothered to play it. One of the biggest waste of money for me in the console space this gen.

 

[Nisaaru]

If you think Halo and Starfield are anything other than 6/10 to 7/10 scores, I don’t know what to tell you. If you think infinite is only 6 points worse than Halo 3 in rating, then it’s obvious to me that you know nothing of the franchise. The other games while good aren’t going to move the needle for most as sales have proven. Psychonauts 2 is also a multi platform game.

I agree on Infinite. A completely disappointing game but then they have a major decision problem with the franchise.

Your reward for purchasing an Xbox is being a 3rd class citizen. You don’t get a premium experience that rewards you for playing on Xbox. It’s literally the worst place to play any game. As a result, I just stuck to my 4090 pc. Once my 3 year gamepass ultimate sub lapses, I’m canceling and not renewing again. If I can’t be bothered to pay for a game, I can’t be bothered to play it. One of the biggest waste of money for me in the console space this gen.

Sorry to say it but your requirements aren't the requirements for a lot of Xbox users.

To me my Xbox is about experiencing AAA multi platform titles the best way on a console on a large TV with an Xbox Elite controller. Getting good exclusives would be nice but after Halo became irrelevant it's not a deciding factor anymore.

There are far more AAA games out there than you can reasonably play especially if you're hooked on time wasters like Destiny, Assassin Creeds, Multiplayers, RPGs anyway. How many games can you actually really play?

If you're hunting for another AAA experience outside your PC setup because you might feel you miss out I wonder how much you actually really experience the games you already have access to.

My personal backlog of unplayed AAA games is huge and could fill years...

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I mean, the whole it’s Don Matrick ploy has been ridiculous this whole time. I have to question if any of the people parroting this falsehood have ever worked in corporate. There’s a leadership team and Matrick was the fall guy. To suggest that the others weren’t aware or in support of it was always ridiculous.

I've worked for organisations where the person at the top could smell a turkey and where they couldn't. When you're at the top of your organisation, you are responsible for selecting a senior management team who are going to deliver a product or service. You take the credit when it goes well, and the blame when it goes wrong. You receive advice, recommendations and opinions but a lot of decisions and when you have dissenting views and conflicting advice from your subordinates, you make the hard decisions. It's why the person at the top exists. You don't get to blame subordinates. They advise, you decide.

And if you are part of that senior management team (and I've been there) and you can see the product is a turkey, there is only so much objecting and dissent you can inject before you're attitude will mean you've removed. If the person at the top, and others genuinely believe in the turkey, then either you go with it and make the turkey and delicious as it can be, or you find another post.

To tell you how much Spencer was in support of always online and all digital, he became the first console ceo to launch an always online console with the Xbox one s all digital. He then followed it up with the push to the cloud by diverting series x chips to their cloud infrastructure at the start of the generation. Another wrong move I might add.

I won't labour this as others have posted but plenty of companies have provided an all-digital device at a lower price point at their physical-media option. In today's financial climate, removing hardware needed for functionality is about your only option for making a budget friendly device cheaper. No drive = less power = smaller = cheaper. It's why the Series S exists and its why the PS5 Digital Edition exists.

The truth of the matter is that anyone trying to say it was all Don Matrick is clearly not paying any attention. He was just the fall guy for a strategy that has continued under Spencer’s leadership. The only part they nixed was always online and only partially.

He was the person in charge. The buck stops with that person. Don Mattrick had to go just like Ken Kutargi, President of Sony Interactive Entertainment, had to go following PS3's launch.

All Microsoft is trying to do now is pull a windows with Xbox to make it hardware agnostic. They think xCloud along with Gamepass will save them.

The original Xbox project was an affordable DirectX box. That's literally where the name comes from. A cutdown set of PC hardware that was competitive with the PS2 running a software stack familiar with PC game developers with a great online experience.

 

[cheapchips]

My Xbox journey has been a positive one for the last 5 years, and that reflects on how I view Spencer and his team.

I mostly ducked out of console gaming in the middle of the PS360 era. At that point, my PC was more powerful that any console known to humanity, had all the titles I wanted to play, and had more titles than I could possibly play.

My daughter was gifted a OneS back in '18. We had some fun times playing stuff together and then Gamepass starred to come into it's own. She's getting to play the breath of titles I experienced as a lad (all be it through cheap £1.99 Spectrum cassettes and then Amiga piracy in my case).

Then as a time poor Dad, Xbox's play anywhere/Gamepass strategy really works for me. I love a diet of mostly non AAA games. My Deck is at least 50% an xCloud machine.

Appealing to me might not be winning business strategy, but from a financial point of view the Xbox division seems to be doing alright. Spencer can keep his job as far as I'm concerned, which is the most important metric. There's no pony he's promised that I'm sad on missing out on.