-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Jesus, this old Major Nelson interview is all you need to see how far MS has come this generation
- Thread starter MrMatt555
- Start date
the problem with that is i actually believe MS made a conscious effort not to target the hign end graphics. instead of just saying it bcause the ps4 smoked the xo.
This is why I don't seem to understand the cognitive dissonance when it comes to Xbox fans (or more specifically Spencer fans).
Quite how they demonize Mattrick (who also ran Xbox throughout most of the 360 period) and then praise Spencer who ran Microsoft Game Studios and shuttered most of their first party dev studios, and led their focus on doubling down on Forza/Halo/Gears unto perpetuity, is frankly baffling.
MS FP development situation is arguably worse now than it ever was under Mattrick's Xbox. So all the weird "I believe in Spencer" hero worship, just seems extremely misguided.
Good on all for giving MS heat, they've changed for the better. The X is completely opposite to the One, its definitely a product of gamer feedback, EA are getting is at the moment, which they deserve too.
Coming from Mattrick even Golum would seem charismatic and loveable.
At least Spencer feels like he's a human being and he knows what combination of words gamers like to hear but most of his popularity stems from clever marketing more than anything else.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge him on shuttering most of their First Party Studios because it's a well known fact that Microsoft grossly mismanages their first party studios and Spencer hasn't been around long enough to do them any harm. I would sooner believe that he had to make the uncomfortable decisions of dealing with the issues caused by Mattrick or Microsoft's management instead of letting his studios dwindle and burn money for the company than that he actually wanted harm or reduce the amount of games coming to his platform.
That isn't to say I don't believe he's a corporate shill, I mean... he completely is and he has lied through his teeth to us multiple times but at least he has a more likeable and approachable character than someone like Mattrick had.
This is not true, your cherry picking and discrediting tangible change thats taken place under Spencer & Xbox, its in a much healthier position then it was when Mattrick left. But continue to discredit him and ignore the roadmap Mattrick put in place that all execs, inc Spencer had to execute, which culminated with Xbox One, and then, Mattricks exit.
I mean, the fans of Xbox are probably the best audience to gauge how happy they are with current state of the brand, it was dire under Mattrick which you deliberately are avoiding, he tried to move away from gaming, Spencer brought it back. He made sweeping changes which proves this, he opened up XBL, dropped Kinect, doubled down on BC and invested heavily in pure gaming machine and controller, you speak of misunderstanding, i think Xbox fans are not the ones trying to grapple with realties here, its you.
Last edited:
Comments on Spencer's likability aren't really what I was focusing on. Rather, the apparent sentiment among fans who seem to want to pin all the woes of the Xbox platform on Mattrick instead of understanding that Spencer being head of Microsoft Game Studios would have also placed him directly in a position of responsibility over some of the more egregious issues that MS is still facing now, particularly on the first party studio management side of things.
Spencer was head of MGS for over four years until his promotion to head of Xbox. In the four years of Spencer's stint as head of MGS, MS' game publishing efforts had all since abandoned any prospect of developing new core gaming IP and cultivating first party studio talent; and was instead laser focused on Kinect and their core franchise IP (i.e. Halo/Forza/Gears). As far as I know Spencer's still head of MGS. So as far as I'm concerned everything to do with the state of MGS from 2009 to-date he has been responsible for, either directly or indirectly.
If you're going to criticize Microsoft's mismanagement of its studios for over the last 7 years, then you cannot but level those criticisms against Spencer. I mean he has been the MGS guy making the investment decisions.
Well of course MS has come far this generation, of course they have done a big turnaround, a bunch of 180s, they were getting their ass kicked by Sony, so they had to do it. When your competition is ass kicking you all over the place you have to do something.
Is MS listening to the consumer these days (game pass, ea access, XBX) etc? Yes they are. They have to, cause they weren't listening to the consumers in the first place, that's why they have to do it these days.
They aren't giving all the good features like refund options, ea access, game pass etc. just because they are nice. They have to do it to turn around the Xbox platform.
Is MS listening to the consumer these days (game pass, ea access, XBX) etc? Yes they are. They have to, cause they weren't listening to the consumers in the first place, that's why they have to do it these days.
They aren't giving all the good features like refund options, ea access, game pass etc. just because they are nice. They have to do it to turn around the Xbox platform.
Receipts please...
You and others keep claiming this but with no sources. It's bullshit... tales from my ass.
I've heard plenty whisperings from people at MS during Mattrick and into the Spencer era and what you're painting here is nothing but fabricated conjecture.
And?
What ever happened and whoever fucked up is irrelevant to what his happening now. Unless you worked side by side we have no idea. Why harp on what happened 5 years ago. It's not important to what is happening in the here and now. Unless you just want to par take in negatively for the thread.
Spencer is taking Xbox / gaming in a different direction and now gaming is big in MS. Xbox studios are and in my head still a bit of mess but it takes a number of years to get right. Forza / Halo / Gears are safe bets and bets you take for stability. When Phil took over Xbox it was in completely rudderless and was dead in the water. The first act was stability and going for surefire hits was safe. Turning the brand around was the key turning point and the fruits of the complete turn around was the Xbox One X. This is the Xbox relaunch. Phils next test is games, games and games and there is some things coming to fruition for example Cuphead and Luckys Tail. They may not be your cup of tea but they broadening Xbox library of games (luckys tail is a lot better than the reviews suggest). I am hoping they are realising that 1st / 2nd Party games do not need to be AAA smaller games like that have lower top end but also lower bottom end but make the big difference for your library. If you remember as well Phil has said that they are keeping things closer to their chest now because of the Scalebound situation and other delays like Crackdown. We should start to see what games Phil has been cooking over the next two years apart from the expected 3 games and I am more optimistic now. With the Back Compatibility and the magic they have added in there has made up for the poor showing 1st party wise this year. Its a big two years coming up.
mattrick was the one who made the bigger push for kinect (which gave him "success" during 360 and ruined the xbox one). it was his vision, not ballmer's, not spencer's (that yes, was around during mattrick days but had little to no voice concerning console matters). it's not unfair to blame mattrick for the shitshow the one launch was
you can blame spencer for not having first party games all you want, but at least my console feels like a console now. the shift from gimmick motion controls to actually being a console and having features fit for a console please me as a xbox owner. i'm not praising spencer as a saint, i'm just recognizing someone who took a sinking ship to better shores
you can blame spencer for not having first party games all you want, but at least my console feels like a console now. the shift from gimmick motion controls to actually being a console and having features fit for a console please me as a xbox owner. i'm not praising spencer as a saint, i'm just recognizing someone who took a sinking ship to better shores
Microsoft merely rectified the batshit insane stuff, which they should not be applauded for. The games are still very much lacking compared to the PS4.
Correct.. it takes years for big games to come..
While many have giving up on Spencer, I am waiting for next E3.. I expect new announcements. Also, I like MS new approach to reveal certain game and then announce it is coming in the same year or very soon.
You say its speculation then proceed with your own speculation. Regardless, you can reasonably say that in any corporation the main driver of a roadmap is its leader. Mattrick box is Xbox One, Spencer's is Xbox X. He opened up XBL, he removed Kinect, he commisioned BC, he invested heavily in hardware with Xbox Elite Pad, Xbox S (what a great slim model) and continues to be popular with the Xbox base. Games are a concern but we know its coming, given that we're already enjoying his changes we got no reason to think its not happening.
Your problem seems to be that Xbox is gaining favour, but continue posting, i want to hear what else your going to use.
So it sounds like Microsoft has successfully branded Phil Spencer as having "Gamer Cred". And people wonder what corporations hire people that the market will find likable. Its because it works.
I mean with the GaaS stuff just reaping cash, there is no way they won't want to be in on that.
But on this front, if they start tinkering and using these as mechanisms to achieve the GaaS money, they run the risk of destroying their franchises with nothing in the wings being able to replace them.
The problem here is that the poor showing from Microsoft has been in existence since the mid-360 generation, not just this year. I'm not sure if it is looking over the fence at Valve but I feel that their entire gameplan is around having third party market share. No dev costs, little outlay, nice cut of everything. And now attempting to leverage GaaS, which has an exponential return *if* it gets traction. This sense of pessimism isn't recent thing, it is years of snowballing sentiment.
On the services side of thing, they are top tier, but you can't ignore key pillars of the ecosystem otherwise it all collapses.
Spencer came in and saved the hardware, but took the 1st party software out back with a shotgun. Which is crazy, because he was one of the top heads that gave us the 360's stupid good software lineup. Stop f'ing around and give us a proper Fable and Lost Odyssey sequel. Don't @ me with excuses lol
I am impressed with how well Xbox changes throughout this generation. I got a PS4 at launch and two years later when I got an Xbox One I felt like that was a mistake to not get an Xbox instead at launch; however I had two years of games to jump into.
I bought a One X and so far I like it much more than my Pro but Microsoft really needs to buck down and get some of those Japanese games on board. They should've thrown money at Square Enix for Nier as well as Sega for Persona. I feel like they're ignoring the obvious when it goes about bringing games over to their system.
Remember when last year Phil Spencer bragged about going to Japan to meet with devs and all that came of it was an exclusive marketing deal for Dragon Ball FighterZ? That's not enough.
I bought a One X and so far I like it much more than my Pro but Microsoft really needs to buck down and get some of those Japanese games on board. They should've thrown money at Square Enix for Nier as well as Sega for Persona. I feel like they're ignoring the obvious when it goes about bringing games over to their system.
Remember when last year Phil Spencer bragged about going to Japan to meet with devs and all that came of it was an exclusive marketing deal for Dragon Ball FighterZ? That's not enough.
Spencer doesn't even need to open new first party studios or create new games and wait four years for them.
Some people keep saying "it's just sonys first party" but that's not true. Sony gets plenty of third party exclusives that I'm sure MS could get in on if they gave a shit.
Why does Phil leave his users out in the cold on nioh, nier, persona, tales, yakuza, dragon quest heroes builders and XI, FF12 and World? These are some of the best games of the last year.
I'm sure MS could just fund the port and get these games. They aren't moneyhat exclusives, they're just games MS doesn't give a shit about and expects its users to do the same.
Some people keep saying "it's just sonys first party" but that's not true. Sony gets plenty of third party exclusives that I'm sure MS could get in on if they gave a shit.
Why does Phil leave his users out in the cold on nioh, nier, persona, tales, yakuza, dragon quest heroes builders and XI, FF12 and World? These are some of the best games of the last year.
I'm sure MS could just fund the port and get these games. They aren't moneyhat exclusives, they're just games MS doesn't give a shit about and expects its users to do the same.
Apologist nonsense. "PS4 only did good because XB1 was received badly" "people didnt get the DRM awesomness that MS were trying to bring to the industry!"
Before I comment on anything I just want to point out how hilarious the contrast between the two reactions to my comment was.
As for you uh... Threads (!?) that is a fair point to bring up and you are right about it, but it wouldn't be fair to only bring up poor decisions that were made under his "command". Before 2008 he was managing Microsoft's European studios, namely Rare and Lionhead and during his "tenure" Lionhead produced what was arguably their best game to date (Fable 2) and Rare was still making games that were fun or tried to appeal to a core audience like Viva Pinata and Nuts and Bolts, even though those had mixed success. At least I appreciate the effort put into those games.
I have a bit of a hard time believing that the focus on Kinect was less than a corporate demand. Microsoft wanted to push that device hard onto consumers to try to take advantage of the Wii crazy that, at the time, was sweeping many countries and they thought that with enough effort they could do it when the reality is that they and every other company that tried to follow suit completely missed the point of the Wii and only realised it was a lightning in a bottle scenario that could only happen once and under very specific circumstances.
If nothing else at least he understands, or has demonstrated, a better understanding of gaming legacy than Mattrick did and I wouldn't be surprised if he had a hand in green lighting the Rare Collection. Mattrick just repeated "experience" a couple of dozen times in each speech and was done with it. Unlike him Spencer repeats "experience" a couple of dozen times but also knows what Battletoads is.
A couple of well-placed vintage gaming tshirts on a charismatic person will do that. Nintendo's been doing it for decades and they've managed to make even someone like Reggie Fils-Aimé who is a blatant corporate stooge that has repeatedly, and blatantly, lied through his teeth seem likeable.
Last edited:
That's a good point. Sony was getting its ass kicked last generation by MS after dominating the market with PS2. They took ridiculous liberties with console pricing, making it weaker than the competition and more expensive (sound familiar?). They also were completely behind in online offerings and services.
The good news is the competition breeds healthy products for consumers and Sony and MS need each other to insure improvements continue.
My reaction was an incredulous one. Because a corporate shill is someone who hides their connection or affiliation to an organisation and talks about said organisation favorably, pretending to be someone with no stake in said organisation.
I'd like you to explain how Phil Spencer is a shill, given that everyone knows he's head of Xbox. Unless you are alleging that he spends his time posting on internet forums under a fake name?
Each time I see him talking these days or at any conference I feel the same. He still looks like a slimy used care salesman that wants to rip you off and each time he says something I get the feeling of never ever trusting this man.
As long as Spencer holds onto the MGS's head role I can't see anything changing if i'm honest.
"Something... something... doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity." Currently, Spencer is still head of MGS, their third party support for contracted FP published games has been slowly flushing down the toilet (with an increasing number of burned bridges), Spencer talks about opening new studios and investing more in FP games (something he's been saying since forever) but has nothing to show... it's been the same thing over and over.
Opening new studios and developing talent from scratch isn't at all easy. MS knows this as they've tried and failed at it. The reason they failed, however, was because in typical MS fashion, they were somehow expecting a brand new, freshly formed studio to just up and put out a multi-million selling hit game on its first try. MS's approach to studio management and development is really very much at odds with what makes a successful FP publisher (i.e. look at Sony and Nintendo), who gives time and investment for a new studio to find their feet as well as the right IP to turn into a franchise.
Given that the studio management hasn't changed, there's no reason to think that anything else will... they'll still open new studios, bombard them with dumb and marketing-led demands and expect a 90+ MC rated 10+m seller or the studio gets gutted.
It seems like I've been misusing the term. I'd like to apologise for that. I did not imply that he was acting covertly to dismiss other companies or trying to plant opinions to benefit a company he has close ties with. What I was implying, but used a wrong term to do so, is that he's just a likeable public figure for Microsoft that does whatever his higher-ups tell him to do. He's only there to defend Microsoft's interests, not gamers, not his studios, not anyone else's. That's what I meant and again, I apologise for my mistake.
seeing as most of the games you mentioned are on playstation and playstation only, its easier to think that despite not being defacto exclusives there is some sort of deal-loyalty to sony than thinking "microsoft is lazy and never cared to pay for them"
nier devs were explicit in saying they werent targeting xbox for automata due to scope. what did you want microsoft to do? beat them to change their minds? drown them in money and force them to make a port?
what executive is there to defend "gamers interest"? Shu? Ryan? Reggie?
everyone acts the same. singling out spencer does nothing.
That certainly is your opinion. I see a executive who always makes himself available in interviews, doesn't skirt the questions, and is as honest as he can be. And always makes himself available on Twitter as the whole Xbox team. Sure at times they'll stick their foot in their mouth or whatever, but at least they put themselves out there.
I'm not singling him out but this is a Microsoft topic, so talking about a Microsoft executive makes more sense than talking about a Nintendo or Sony one. With that said, I did criticise a Nintendo exec on this very thread:
Lol... really? The bolded is just sad.
My problem is with people parroting this unsubstantiated narrative about Mattrick and Spencer that's based on nothing but speculation. It's weird...
The reality of the situation is far more complex and I'm frankly amazed by the nativity of people who seem to hang off dubious interpretations of PR promises from MS PR mouthpieces only to be disappointed every year at MS' E3 press conference.
By the way, you still haven't provided any evidence for your claims about who has been responsible for what at MS (the burden of proof is actually on you, since you're the one pushing the narrative).
I just find this "he's out there for the company interest, not gamers" statement silly. Every employee of every console maker is there for the interest of their gaming company. Yet having someone who at least feels approachable like Spencer instead of a dismissive arrogant like Mattrick can do wonders to change opinions about how microsoft cares or not about you
The reality of the situation is that Mattrick clinged to the kinect and it almost killed the xbox one. And that one of the things he handwaved as unimportant (BC) is one of the main things Spencer is investing. PR mouthpieces or not these two changes are visible to everyone and changed the reality of the console for the best. But sure, tell me all about how i, as a xbox but not PS4 owner, am disappointed because apparently you're the one who gets to decide that.
Lol, nice try. That's not the way it works. If you make a claim about the internal management structure of MS and who has been responsible for what aspects of the corporate roadmap, the burden of proof is on you.
I can understand why you'd be cynical about it but I think having that type of mindset towards the majority of people in the industry is wrongful and dismissive.
Most if not all games that reach us are labours of love. They wouldn't exist if there weren't passionate people about them even if yes, they are being paid by greedy corporations with anti-consumer interests in mind. I'll agree with you that not all games are made or designed with the best interests in mind, with Battlefront 2 being a good example of one, but I have no doubt in my mind that if there wasn't a passionate team developing the core part of that game wouldn't be as good as it is.
I'm not talking about every person in the industry, i'm talking about the responsibles of every console. They're not all there to promote passion for gaming in general, they're there to promote passion for gaming on their console/platform. Which is only natural
If that's the criteria you're using, Spencer also complimented Sony and Nintendo several times. I don't get your point at all.
But i will respect your decision to not derail the thread and end the discussion here.
Last edited:
What you've described is every executive in every company ever. How is that a bad thing? Every single executive is there to defend their company's interest. And nothing else.
So I'm not sure how that is relevant to the discussion at all.
Quite surprised reading through this thread and seeing defences of the DRM strategy for the original Xbox One. I can't quite understand how... It was just crazy anti-consumer restrictions for very little gain. I still can't believe they tried to get away with that online drm check in that would lock all games if it wasn't successful after a day. Insane.
Back to the main topic MS has come a long way indeed. To me, Mattrick's direction of mass market appeal for the second half of the 360 and for the Xbox One was flawed, with numerous misguided decisions for the long term as detailed in this thread. I think Robbie Bach and his team were really innovative with the launch and first half of 360 and now Spencer is certainly trying. Although the team seems to be trying everything (and some good stuff at that) except investing in games (as far as we know of course). Although his recent comments on that subject are encouraging and look forward to seeing the results of that.
Back to the main topic MS has come a long way indeed. To me, Mattrick's direction of mass market appeal for the second half of the 360 and for the Xbox One was flawed, with numerous misguided decisions for the long term as detailed in this thread. I think Robbie Bach and his team were really innovative with the launch and first half of 360 and now Spencer is certainly trying. Although the team seems to be trying everything (and some good stuff at that) except investing in games (as far as we know of course). Although his recent comments on that subject are encouraging and look forward to seeing the results of that.
Last edited:
I don't... When you think about MS at the corporate level, to imagine that a bunch of execs whose primary concerns involve appeasing shareholders, their OS, Office and enterprise software businesses (i.e. the biggest pillars of the company) and their on-going push into cloud services and software as a service, I find it extremely hard to believe that corporate management at MS would care enough about a single natural interface device within the Xbox business that is only really applicable within that area of the business. I think it far more likely that Kinect was Mattrick's baby and Mattrick wanted to push it upwards onto the Windows side, as opposed to the other way around... but again that's all conjecture.
Still, when you think about MS' corporate strategy during those years, it's hard to see why corporate MS would have a vested interest in pushing Kinect any harder on the Xbox business.
This point seems bizarre to me. Because Mattrick was never head of Microsoft Game Studios. Spencer was. So why would the head of the Xbox business be expected to understand games and game legacy better than the actual "games guy" within Xbox. Also, how you even arrive at this, or its relevance is a little lost on me, if i'm being honest.
Even if you think Spencer understand game legacy better than Mattrick, in the time since he's been in charge of Xbox, I don't really see that it's helped the platform.
This. Sony and Microsoft have proven that they are most pro-consumer when they are NOT in the lead. Both companies taking turn each generation seems to be the best outcome for us as gamers. :)
I feel like we're discussing different things whenever we reply to each other and the main topic being discussed gets further derailed each time we do.
I agree with you that Spencer did help improve Xbox's image even if the practical benefits for consumers were minimal, if any at all.
I disagree with you that every corporative person in gaming companies only defends their own company. Shuhei Yoshida, as an example has complimented Nintendo multiple times. I don't think that corporatives are as you say.
Let's agree to disagree and leave this at that so we don't derail the thread any further.
Well if you've heard 'whispering's' what's the point in carrying on this conversation? Unless of course your 'whispering's' don't amount too much or even less than that?
Ultimately Mattrick fell on his sword as happens with any senior management fallout and Phil has pretty much transformed the Xbox brand from toxic to desirable. Hardware is sorted. Service is sorted. Now its onto first party.
I honestly don't know how much more he could have done?
Phil Spencer constantly compliments other companies. Sony and Nintendo. I think you're a bit naive if you think the priority of any executive is anything other than "doing what they are paid for".
One thing I'll say about Phil is he plays a lot of games. And plays with random xbox gamers too. Interacts well on twitter....of course he does that for a reason but there clearly is a genuine love of gaming there. First and foremost though he's a job to do. Naive to think otherwise.
:) I couldn't help but ask seeing as you fell into the same trap
It's all just supposition unless the inner circle comes out with a behind the scenes exposé -
I wonder if Don Mattrick's writing a book.
What are you even talking about? Who are you talking to? Because nothing in your post in any way answers what I was discussing with the other poster.
Anyone else think that still image looks like Major Nelson has a huge yellowhead zit on his face?