Personally, I don't think that Microsoft is going to make the games Sony makes and why would they? That's not their direction. Never has been. Outside of Halo and Gears, Microsoft has never been a company that focuses on visuals like Sony does or truly goes in the single player only direction where even now, Sony is pivoting because they know they can't just stay with their old formula.
People talk more about Sony's and Nintendo's exclusives because first, they have some this year, second, they have a longer history especially Nintendo but here's the main difference, one the novelty of a God of War Ragnarok wares off, people move on so while it's talked about a lot, once people move on, it will be forgotten. How many people still talk about the PS4 exclusives? Very few. The game I see mentioned and talked about the most is Bloodborne because people want a PS5 patch for it. I haven't seen even Horizon Forbidden West talked about since it launched. It will get a boost when they reveal and announce the expansion for it but after that, it will be dead silent.
Microsoft's games may not be talked about like Sony or Nintendo but they don't need to be. If you have 20m+ players playing a Sea of Thieves for example years after it released, guess what? That game is much more talked about in the long term than any Sony or Nintendo game because it's still active where as the one and done games are well, done and people moved on already.
Even God of War Ragnarok, once everyone completes it and talks about for a few weeks, people will move on to their next game because how many times can someone talk about the same game when it's exactly the same conversation as it was months/years earlier? I play Division 2 and it's 3 1/2 years old. I still talk about the game. I haven't talked about HFW for example since it launched outside of the debates I had with Thicc because after you talk about it, there's nothing left to discuss until the next new game in the series which is usually multiple years away.
Obviously, I disagree with the end. I prefer Spencer. I don't want an old school guy coming in who's out of touch with reality and trying to cling on to a business model that's simply becoming more obsolete by the day. Besides, outside of a few Halo games, none of Microsoft's games ever sold 10m+ copies so why would they have stayed with an old school approach when it never really worked for hem since the beginning to begin with? Answer is you wouldn't. You would change and adapt because the old model wasn't working for them so why stay with something isn't working?
Just because something may work great for Sony or Nintendo doesn't mean it will work out great for Microsoft. Just like Game Pass is a perfect fit for Microsoft and their direction as a company, that may not be the same for Sony or Nintendo. Companies need to focus on what their strengths are in regards to their brand and direction. Old school model wasn't working for Microsoft and Xbox so bringing in someone old school simply wouldn't work at all and if anything, would set them even further back because they would simply be out of touch with reality in how things are progressing.
Compared to the 70% that doesn't care. Which do you believe will win out? I can guarantee you that it's not the 30%.
Gears, halo were show pieces for Xbox. So wasn't games they partnered with like Riddick, Doom, Elderscrolls, Knights of the old republic, they had many big games, hell even Kameo was a looker when it launched.
They use to be, but there's too much evidence on who truly ran the division. Phil is a nice guy, and has a huge long career as a "manager" figure in Microsoft studios. But he's creativly done nothing and nothing grand has come from his managment of xbox stuidios. If anything compared to Don Mattrick, Don had way more deals with Third party, way more deals with exclusive content that showed off Xbox.
Early days of XBox and 360 were more Don mattrick than Phil if im being honest in terms of large IP.
I see a guy who tries to be the nice guy that gets along with everyone but doesn't have the mindset of a studio head that knows how to manage. Has a enterprise software midnset where you just throw more money/people at a project instead of realizing the concept of said project was never good to begin with.
Those are the hard decisions you have to make in the entertainment industry. I have seen soo many cancelled projects that have never seen the light of day or anyone even knows about.
I love that everyone praises phil as a visionary coming up with something that was already a thing in the industry such as Subscription service specifically for games. That has existed since Sega Channel.
But its again the money behind it that makes the difference from all others. And again it was about throwing money at it. Instead of trying to grow it slowly and get the rest of your internal studios where they needed to be, they could have un-defunct Lion head if they truly had the blessing for funds. Lion head was closed in 2016, phil was appointed in 2017 as CEO. And that change and push was the same time.
They could have course corrected a lot. I would have reached out to Sega, and platinum and restarted the project/contract to get something out of the partnership regardless of where the game project was. TO me that shows you give a shit, and that you care more about the collaboration/relationship. That speaks more, it shows that your not just looking at it as a contract/product relationship.
He closed that shit down.
And now when they were at TGS, kind of were the laughing stock by getting the industries sloppy seconds. Why would any developer in Japan want to do business with a company that recently closed down projects and never green lit new ones?
