Journalist goes on record - The Initiative in trouble, Xbox leadership blamed
- Thread starter Bryank75
- Start date
D
Deleted member 140
Guest
I really think Microsoft needs to spend more money. And on top of that, they should also spend more money. Maybe they could even try to throw money at the problem.
Brilliant strategist Phil is brilliant!
Brilliant strategist Phil is brilliant!
Rich @ reviewtechUSA just gave a good summary of what is going on with XGS at the moment.
Meanwhile, @ Xbox, Matt booty:
Rich @ reviewtechUSA just gave a good summary of what is going on with XGS at the moment.
Meanwhile, @ Xbox, Matt booty:
Old news.
A lot of people including Jaffe have been saying this for a while, Microsoft is not good at managing game software period. All of this was under Phil, and even during Don mattrick, Phil had a senior managment position that over saw Microsoft game studios, which included a lot of games like Crackdown 3.
Guy is a visionary, not good at managing software.
Not really. They aren’t changing the people who oversee these studio stables. For example Pete Hines still oversees Bethesda, IIRC. I’m sure someone will still oversee Activision Blizzard studios. Only now, these people report to Microsoft.
This news about The Initiative isn’t anything new. It was reported awhile back and it was the same problem as Rare, that Microsoft is actually too hands off and gives too much freedom.
But this is a little different because it’s saying people leaving Initiative are going to other Xbox studios. So it seems the core issue isn’t with Xbox leadership here but leadership at The Initiative itself.
Yep this comment is still, sadly, right in the money. “They don’t think of original ideas” applies to everything they do.
Phil is a visionary? Lol. How do you figure? Maybe you don’t quite get what that means.
Visionary is someone with good idea's. Gamepass as a idea is great. Issue is you need good content, and phil sucks at managing software. He lacks the chops to get the correct people to change the way Microsoft/Xbox looks at software.
I actually thought they would have bangers ready for launch this time, I'm dumbfounded by their output so far
The only thing that could possibly make sense is a new cycle of development which unfortunately started for most studios around the time of the acquisitions. This would mean a large period of time with very little (as seen now) but a cascade of games later.
This is a big part of the reason why the studios acquired haven’t released much of anything yet, the studios they bought pretty much all had games in the works already or had just released something.
Compulsion - only had around 40 people on the staff when they were bought and they were wrapping up We Happy Few. It’s been four years since it released and the team had grown to nearly 100 employees. New project should be coming along nicely.
Inxile - was already hard at work on Wasteland 3. Thanks to Microsoft’s money, they got extra time to polish the visuals and add full VO to the game. But it didn’t release until two years after the acquisition, so it’s only been a couple years, and they released DLC and free updates.
Obsidian - Outer Worlds was a year off after the acquisition. They also put out numerous DLC expansions. Have been on record saying MS resources have allowed them to grow more teams and work on more projects. Got the freedom for passion project Grounded, which gets a full release this year alongside Pentiment. Two smaller games, but it’s only been three years since their last big game.
Undead Labs - bought right after SoD2 released. This is one of the studios who maybe should have something else out by now, SoD2 was four years ago, but idk the size of the team. They also supported SoD2 with loads and loads of free DLC. They reworked and overhauled so much of the game it’s almost like an entire sequel.
Playground - released Horizon 4 and 5, working on Fable.
Ninja Theory - the other studio who maybe should have something else out by now. On record crediting and thanking MS for the freedom to do passion project Bleeding Edge. Working on Hellblade 2 and other projects. But it’s been five years since their last “big” game, and Hellblade 1 wasn’t even really a “big” game. I wonder what their staff size is, and if maybe they are spreading themselves too thin.
Double Fine - small studio bought in the thick of Psychonauts 2. Have multiple things in the works but Psychonauts 2 was only last year, it’s understandable they don’t have anything on the immediate burner.
The rest are Bethesda studios, and they have been taking forever long before MS bought them. Of course, it didn’t help that the first two games Bethesda released were contractually bound to PlayStation for a year.
The main reason I’ve been patient and am happy to wait is almost all of these games released here were not just good imho but great. Bleeding Edge was just ok but it’s a $20 multiplayer title. Never played We Happy Few. But the rest were all very good.
I'm going to respectfully disagree and I will explain why.
IMO a visionary is exactly what is is describing. Someone who has a "vision" and can get people to execute on it. It is not the same thing as someone with "good ideas." Plenty of people have good ideas, and most of them come from the actual creators themselves. That's why those people are in creative positions. They have good ideas.
But being a visionary means you also have clarify of thought, and can clearly explain your vision in a way that gets people excited, and also moving in the same direction as a group. That's what being a "visionary leader" does. Game Pass is not visionary. It's a subscription software service, which has not only existed for quite some time now, its not even new to Microsoft. That payment model has gained popularity as a result of what Apple (and to a lesser extent Google) has done with their App Store, basically becoming rent seekers at the expense of developers and their relationships with their customers. It doesn't even take half a brain for Phil Spencer to see all of the other software sub models happening with Microsoft and say "Hey, what if we had like a games subscription service too!"
Caption: Phil Spencer seeing the glut of software subscription services in the tech industry and wanting in on the action.
I wouldn't even be surprised if it was Nadella's idea and Spencer is basically a yes man in that regard, since we all know Nadella's viewpoint on "the cloud." So no, I don't agree that game pass as an idea is great. I personally think it's complete and utter garbage, and yet another stepping stone to getting the consumer to not understand how much it costs to develop good software. A developer once said they never thought they would see the day where people would be buying 5 dollar coffees while saying 99 cents was too much for an application. Game Pass is doing the same thing to games, and we see it on boards, and now it's seeping into the Sony fan's psyche with PS+. It's honestly just sad.
But back to the visionary idea. As I said, If you have a real vision for something, you can clearly explain it. You can repeat it, because it's ingrained in your memory (much like how it's easier to tell the truth than to remember your lies). Please tell me in your own words what is Phil's vision for anything? Has he ever been consistent? Has he ever said something that he didn't contradict a year or so later? How about this. Does he ever say anything that doesn't just suit his current marketing need du jour? How many times has he said "we hear you loud and clear" only for nothing to change? If he was a visionary how come his customers are always unhappy with the offerings, and he acts like he has to respond to them? Instead of leading them to new lands of heretofore unseen gaming nirvana? Remember how he saw the PS5 reveal lineup and said he "felt pretty good" about what they had to offer in comparison? Which has turned out to be literally nothing?
So as we clearly know Phil did not invent subscriptions, far from it. They've been prevalent in the industry long before Game Pass, and were prevalent in MS long before GP was ever a thing as well. So beyond that ... he hasn't led them to having a solid games library in nearly ten years. He also can't keep his stories straight. I don't think there is any point in detailing all of that since we all know how much the dude has straight up lied over the years. So if he hasn't had any new ideas, and can't lead his studios, and hasn't had any industry leading hits under his watch how can he possibly be a visionary?
Jaffe had on his stream last night the Pax West interview with Matt Booty, this dude's days are numbered if he's literally telling an audience developers are having issues with Ray Tracing and how to use the CPU:
I time stamped the start of the Matt Booty conversation, feel free to make more time stamps if needed.
I time stamped the start of the Matt Booty conversation, feel free to make more time stamps if needed.
I'm really sick of Xbox's insincerity. I'm a little bitter because I bought into their hype this gen and because I liked the design of the XSX. I'm never going back there again into that ecosystem. They clearly cannot be trusted to deliver on their promises. I can't believe anyone who actually likes games would be in support of them acquiring Activision.
It's not your fault, Microsoft are masters of PR Spin, etc,
If there is one thing they do right, is getting their "message" out there.
And yet you have chods like Destin, Cockeastwood, Dealer, all these nuckleheads have no clue wtf they are talking about. And all are for XBox because it means they dont have to buy games.
I literally just bought Aliens:Fire team elite on steam. Game is fucking great. Like people can't wait for sales? Last of us part 1 will go on sale during black Friday. Like returnal is now available on a service, it goes on sale for $40-50. Demons Souls Remake was $40 a month or so ago.
Everyone acts like they drank the Microsoft Kool-aid that there can't be paid games anymore? TO me and i know all the xbox people will hate on me for this, but if I'm being honest I think a healthy way of doing business is selling a game then if it falls short sales wise, put it on a service.
So what Sony is doing in not putting games day to date like Single player games makes sense, but games that will evolve as a service to me those you can easily make you're money back if they debut on a service.
Service games, and smaller AA-Indie titles work well for a service. Giant big budget AAA games make little sense unless its months after the game has come out and sales have all but dried. To me thats how you make some of you're money back.
If someone isn't willing to bite at $70 let alone $50-40 then putting it on a service to give it a second life makes sense.
But all these xbox people including level headed folks like Jaffe think this is how we will consume media in gaming going forward. MY rebuttal is if this was truly the only way forward, PC would have taken off in the service\sub space long ago. Games are so cheap on that platform that, people would rather just own the games.
I think Sub services will work along side of paid titles. I think trying to put all of you're eggs into one basket is a mistake. As seen with what currently is happening in the entertainment sector.
There are even talks of physical media coming back, if more crashes like the ones we are seeing happen in TV/FILM happen.
Totally agree. Launching 1stP games on the service is great in theory, but when it's fundamentally changing how that game is conceptually (live service, GaaS), then it's a bloody awful thing. They need their games to be developed that way so they can MTX the life out of their users in order to make any money. Especially when a huge swathe of their subbers have only paid $1 for 3 years of the service! (Me included)
PlayStation really have the right idea, launch the game as normal, recoup development costs, then port to PC and release on sub service. It's really great. As a PS/PC gamer, I'm not short of things to play, but the things I love, like GoW, I wanna buy day-1 and I want the studio to be able to make that RoI. Having a game launch directly on a sub day-1 greatly diminishes the value of the game and therefore will lead to less investment in the long run. Especially for the types of games Sony are known for.
The thing about GP is that is lacked any nuance or finesse in its business model. They have essential destroyed their market chansing that sweet sweet sub dollar. Cutting prices on their consoles when competitors are incresing the ASP, no game sales, dozens of impotent studios... and we keep hearing that P3 is a ViSiOnArY. All P3 is good at is throwing away daddy's money, but you need a lot more than just money to create good games. They're like China, trying to throw money at developing their own semi-conductors right now because of the sanctions. Let's see how that goes. It's gonna take them properly 10-15 years to get to where western tech is now, and they're trying to get there by 2025. Good luck with that China!