• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ori Dev Criticizes Microsoft For Creating “Artificial Barriers”

Tripolygon

Banned
The nerve of this guy.

Microsoft and Spencer basically funded their first game, while they were completely new in the developer space. And gave it a ton of exposition, during E3 and all. MS even allowed for the game to be released on Switch. And the guy somehow manages to shit on MS and Spencer ? Wow... How unthankful can he be ? I wonder. Worse than a spoiled kid.

If he wanted to release his game on all platforms, there were third party publishers out there.
What are some of you on?

You are not beholden to a corporation that funds your project beyond you delivering said product. Which they delivered a critically acclaimed project that is one of Microsoft's best IPs now. One of my favorite games ever.

As a publisher it is literally your job to give exposure to the game you are publishing, it is not charity, it is business. Microsoft, Sony, EA are contractually obligated to provide those services to games they are publishing, just like Moon studios were contractually obligated to create the game.

Sometimes it is not always about other publishers being out there to take on the project. The game was already in development before Microsoft approached them to be the publisher.
 

GHG

Gold Member
One one hand I get what he's saying about them failing to follow through and put their money where their mouth is (which, by the way I completely understand why they aren't because it would be a disastrous business decision. It's better for them to just play the "good guy" PR game from a financial standpoint).

On the other hand, this guy has been so disrespectful towards his industry peers in the past that I can't feel a single ounce of empathy towards him.
 

NeoIkaruGAF

Gold Member
See kids, this is what being on ResetEra does to you.

Plenty of stuff in the history of human activity that could have reached a larger audience “if only [insert condition here]”. This guy’s games are more famous than most gaming gems you’ll only discover through very specialized channels, and he’s still complaining he got a bad deal. Ori is available on a system that’s closing in on 100 million pieces sold, ffs.
 
I know right. MS treated his game as close to AAA as you can with an "indie title" and he comes out with this rubbish.
Ori and its sequel are better games than anything 343 or the coalition put out last gen, the guy has earned the right to speak his mind IMO. That being said someone needs to call Spencer on his crap, if he's not interested in taking games away from other platforms why are Starfield and ES6 no longer coming to PlayStation?
 

Menzies

Banned
I think people are reading a lot into the 'anywhere' comments from Phil...

The 'rhetoric Phil espouses' of anywhere, any time, any device is the Satya MSFT ethos for adapting cloud first business model and subscription services e.g. Azure and 365. So when Phil spouts off in similar language, it refers to cloud gaming and not 'I-want-to-put-all-games-on-our-competitors-platforms-kumbaya'.

Can someone find Phil's quote where he implicitly states that?
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Made 2 amazing games but he’s an absolute tard of the highest order. MS wanted Game Pass on PS. If they’d relented you’d be able to play Ori on PS. End of story.
 

mrmeh

Member
Microsoft have been by far the most consumer friendly platform holder in recent years. They obviously can't release there AAA titles on Nintendo/Playstation with out reciprocity, it would be financial suicide to the Xbox division(Console sold at cost, generates money through a cut of platform sales). MS allowed Ori to come to the Switch and did Nintendo release any of there IP's on Xbox..

Seems he's a touch overly critical of MS who he chose to publish his game and when they are pushing the play anywhere as much as it currently makes sense to..
 
, if he's not interested in taking games away from other platforms why are Starfield and ES6 no longer coming to PlayStation?
Now see here, this is the legitimate criticism of Phil Spencer. Not this pathetic nonsense talk about how all Xbox games should come to PS and Nintendo. I do think taking an established franchise from a large userbase is pretty shitty.
 
Last edited:

mrmeh

Member
It may also be the case more people have played Ori through a gamepass sub than would have bought it if it was not on game pass but also on PS.
 

Kimahri

Banned
Eh.. what does this guy expect? He's got some weird opinions. Great game maker though.

However, With streaming taking off and xbox games being playable on a cell phone or pc, or even probably just a TV soon, MS is punching holes in this guy's reasoning left and right.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
I love Ori too and it makes me sad to learn one of the main people behind such beloved games is a narcissistic, ungrateful and entitled asshole.
Not the first time he’s had an embarrassing and potentially harmful rant on Ree.

Last time he blasted Cyberpunk, No Man’s Sky and Fable and had a little self-pity party. He then issued an apology the day after.

Sadly, it looks like he learnt nothing from that episode.

Separate the art from the artist though.


This is something that's been bothering me for a while and I get kinda riled up about it every time I see it unfold. And every time it keeps happening, people keep falling for it...

It all started with Molyneux. He was the master of 'Instead of telling you what my product is, let me just go wild with what I think it could be and get you all excited!" - And that was fine, until you actually put your money down and then the game was nothing like what Peter was hyping it up to be. He pulled this shit for a good decade or more with journalists and gamers loving listening to Uncle Peter and the amazing things he's doing for the industry. It took him to release some pretty damn shoddy games for press and gamers to finally not listen to the lies anymore.

Then came Sean Murray, who apparently had learned straight from the Peter Molyneux handbook. This guy apparently just loooooved the spotlight. Even days before No Man's Sky released, he hyped up the Multiplayer that didn't even exist and was all too happy to let people think that No Man's Sky was 'Minecraft in Space', where you could literally do everything (you being able to do everything is generally a common theme behind the gaming snake oil salesmen, cause hey, that sorta attracts everybody!). Obviously there was massive backlash when No Man's Sky finally released and the product being nothing like what Murray hyped it up to be. But what happened then? They released a bunch of updates, so let's forget about the initial lies and deception and hey, let's actually shower him with awards again, cause he finally kinda sorta delivered on what he said the game would be years earlier. Thanks, Geoff Keighley. Rewarding that kinda behavior will surely help the industry grow stronger.

And then came Cyberpunk. Made by the guys that made Witcher 3, so this shit had to be good. Here's our Cyberpunk universe and - trust us - you can do fucking everything! Here the entire CDPR PR department took all the cues from what worked for Molyneux and Murray and just went completely apeshit with it. Gamers were to believe that this is "Sci-Fi GTA in First Person". What's not to love? Every video released by CDPR was carefully crafted to create a picture in players minds that was just insanely compelling. They stopped just short of outright saying that this thing would cure cancer. This strategy resulted in a sensational 8 million pre-orders. What happened then was this: . The product was a fraction of what the developer hyped it up to be and on top of that it barely even ran on consoles that it was supposed to 'run surprisingly well on!'.

I'd argue that all 3 of those are clear examples of you folks all being made fools of. And even the 'journalists' in this industry happily played along, each and every single time.

And let me also say, from the perspective of a developer, all of this just sucks. Back in 2014, I remember some journalist from some big publication telling us that Ori almost got the cover article of some magazine I read frequently, but ultimately they had to pick No Man's Sky cause it was the 'bigger game'. I kinda agreed back then, thinking to myself: "Ok, I get it, they have to promote the bigger game, they obviously have to go for the clicks. Sucks, but that's how the game is played." But then I really felt bamboozled once No Man's Sky came out and it became clear that all this hype was really just built on lies and the honest guy who just showed his actual product really got kicked in the balls because the lying guy was able to make up some tall tales that held absolutely no substance.

I know this whole thread might come off as me sounding bitter and I'm sure there'll be some people that see this as me shitting on other devs. No, I'm not. I'm shitting on liars and people that are okay with openly deceiving others. I'd argue that we should all agree that this shit is not okay. If I go and buy a car and the car salesman sells me a car that supposedly has 300 horse power, but on the drive home after the purchase I notice that he switched out the motor when I wasn't looking, I'd be rightfully pissed off, cause I was deceived.

And yet, gamers and journalists don't really seem to mind all that much. Yeah, the backlash is coming, but usually you see a ton of people then arguing that they like the game that came out of it anyway. That is so not the point. It doesn't matter if the snake oil actually tastes fine. Don't sell me on features that don't exist. Don't paint a picture that you'll not be able to deliver. Just don't fucking lie to me. You're fucking over gamers, you're fucking over journalists (that should know better, so shame on you!) and you're fucking over other developers.

There, I said my piece, felt like a chip I needed to get off my shoulder and I think this is a wrong that we should set right so that this won't happen anymore.
 

Tams

Gold Member
He sounds like a whiny brat who wants to have his cake and eat it. Perfect fit for Reeeeeeeeeee.

He signed a contract with Microsoft. It was Microsoft's money funding the development of his (and his team's) game. They will have paid more than otherwise to have it be exclusive.
 
Last edited:

Darsxx82

Member
"When everybody plays we all win" - Phil spencer

Also Phil Spencer : No you can't release that game on Playstation.

I guess we all lost.
Spencer says such a thing because reality allows him to say such a thing. Xbox games can be played day one on Xbox consoles, PC, Steam, mobiles, tablets and soon on TV. Unless you tell me that no PS user has access to any of those dislositives that would be a joke.

Today everyone has a device with access to exclusive Xbox games and that is why that expression is totally fine and correct.

Here the only problem for the director of Moon Studios is that he regrets not having made more financial profit from his ORI proyects by raising a Playstation version. Of course her concern for the users is a joke because Ori can be played for all PS users too. The fact that the game is in a multitude of devices does not satisfy him because that is within the exclusive contract and he does not benefit. Lastly, it is utter absurdity for he to ask MS to bring its exclusive games to Playstation and Nintendo and then "excuse" them for not doing so. Asking MS for the "sacrifice" waiting for Sony to react by doing the same is another major absurdity.
The situation here is simple, Malher is simply looking out for his interests and is annoyed that choosing MS as an editor for an Xbox exclusive has not allowed him to have earned more money for him and his studio by not charging the percentage that would correspond to him for the sales in PS. There's no more.
 
Last edited:

Cyberpunkd

Gold Member
The 13 year old kid whose parents were able to only afford to buy one system for their child now won’t grow up playing Halo because Microsoft believes that it makes the most financial sense to leave PlayStation players out. How does that benefit anyone but Microsoft?”
Because limiting buying plastic, screen time, number of games is a bad thing?
 

SaucyJack

Member
There’s a real lack of reading comprehension being shown on this thread already. 🙄

He raises some interesting points about MS contradictions in words v actions, calls out Sony and Nintendo for being scared and is not particularly “whinging” about exclusivity on Ori - rather seems to accurately talking about the reality of the situation and explains why they’ve sought a new publisher for their next project.

All in all a thought provoking post, but yeah, he’s disagreed with Phil so let’s all go Johnny Storm.
 
Last edited:
There’s a real lack of reading comprehension being shown on this thread already. 🙄

He raises some interesting points about MS contradictions in words v actions, calls out Sony and Nintendo for being scared and is not particularly “whinging” about exclusivity on Ori - rather seems to accurately talking about the reality of the situation and explains why they’ve sought a new publisher for their next project.

All in all a thought provoking post, but yeah, he’s disagreed with Phil so let’s all go Johnny Storm.
He's simply wrong about his main point though. The poor 13 year old child who only has a $500 Playstation (lmao) can indeed play all the Xbox games for a small fee. He doesn't even need to buy a dedicated device. That's what Phil promised and that's what he's slowly delivering.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
I don't particularly like Mahler, but in all fairness what he's saying isn't really critical of MS, but of how the business as a whole works right now. Opining for a future where there are no walled gardens isn't "bitiing the hand that feeds", just unrealistic utopianism.

Maybe people are reacting to the way that it exposes that despite the PR speak about having everyone play together, MS are still operating on their traditional "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy. Not that there's anything innately wrong with that, but it is slightly disappointing that despite the opportunity afforded by GamePass/Xcloud their approach hasn't really altered.
 
I remember this guy also alluded to the idea of BOTW being overrated and that his games were superior cuz they were hand built or hand designed or some such nonsense.
I think your distaste for the dude might be filling in the gaps of your memory, though I could be wrong, maybe you read some other comments of his that I didn't.

What I remember him critiquing about BOTW was that the world was too big and that it would have been better if the overall size was reduced by 10-15% (I don't remember the exact percentage he mentioned but IIRC it's within that range).

I didn't agree with what I read because I thought BOTW benefited with that negative space, personally I consider it as breathing space. Having said that he's not wrong either, it's his subjective experience vs mine.

And with regards to the topic itself, I don't think his post on Resetera is bad (or biting the hand that feeds etc.).

It can be spun to be that way but what I'm gathering is that if he wants to make singleplayer games, they could work as exclusives but for something like Fortnite where you want as many people interacting together, then being able to be on every platform is obviously the ideal solution.

I also read what Spencer said and what I see is that both Mahler and Spencer are speculating; only the Bungie people who made the decision to leave truly know what they wanted with that departure.
 
I don't particularly like Mahler, but in all fairness what he's saying isn't really critical of MS, but of how the business as a whole works right now. Opining for a future where there are no walled gardens isn't "bitiing the hand that feeds", just unrealistic utopianism.

Maybe people are reacting to the way that it exposes that despite the PR speak about having everyone play together, MS are still operating on their traditional "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy. Not that there's anything innately wrong with that, but it is slightly disappointing that despite the opportunity afforded by GamePass/Xcloud their approach hasn't really altered.
It's... nothing like that? Their strategy is "pay for Gamepass, play everywhere". Not sure how this strategy relates to what you linked.
 

MonarchJT

Banned
Phil is definitely a bit hypocritical with his stance regarding open platforms. Nintendo/Sony don't hide it, but Phil likes to pretend to be the good guy meanwhile going out to buy Bethesda only to take their previously multiplatform games exclusive.

If he truly believes his own spiel, he should put his money where his mouth is and actually embrace open platforms.
he is absolutely doing it. Ms is certainly the only one releasing games to the biggest audience and on the most platforms all of this with the broader spectrum of prices in conjunction with the lowest entry price.
Nobody is perfect but Microsoft is certainly much more pro consumer than others
 

Nautilus

Banned
What a bunch of nonsense.

Honestly, feels like reading a kid's post, that he is mad that his favorite icecream isn't available at his nearby store, and not a full grown adult who is in the industry long enough to know why exclusives are important to a platform and a console, and why it makes business sense.
 

Zok310

Banned
It’s all an artificial barrier and if that going to change someone will have to lead by example and that ain’t happing no time soon.
Phil needs to pick a side and ride it to the end of the world, this double talk makes him lose credibility, also makes him a liar and a hypocrite.
For you to get the full Halo Infinite you need to go digital, that’s an artificial barrier, you can only play it on Xbox and pc another artificial barrier. It’s all artificial barriers Phil. Same for PS and Nintendo.
 
Last edited:

Aion002

Member
The Simpsons Burn Bridge GIF
 

Elios83

Member
He's both right and wrong. He's right that the no barriers talk is pure PR talk by the always pretending to be a good guy Spencer, but he's wrong in thinking that he signed a contract and then he could escape from the conditions.

In any case this sounds more like a public burnt bridge, their next game infact won't be under MS so he will get what he wants, more players will play his games.
 

RGB'D

Member
Phil is definitely a bit hypocritical with his stance regarding open platforms. Nintendo/Sony don't hide it, but Phil likes to pretend to be the good guy meanwhile going out to buy Bethesda only to take their previously multiplatform games exclusive.

If he truly believes his own spiel, he should put his money where his mouth is and actually embrace open platforms.
He also releases everything on PC and mobile....
 

sankt-Antonio

:^)--?-<
Its not about being payed to develop an xbox exclusive and wanting it to be on PS5, its about MS shouting from the rooftops that they want barrier free gaming but at the same time are not down with it to cast the first stone and make all of their games available to every gamer.

Thats all there is to it. He is not arguing that MS should bring Ori to PS5 in retrospect specifically but to follow up on their talk and make xbox games available (as a service even) on every console. There is a difference to it, if MS never talked about gaming 4 all, then all is good. Contract is contract and he choose another pub for his upcoming game.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
It's... nothing like that? Their strategy is "pay for Gamepass, play everywhere". Not sure how this strategy relates to what you linked.

Its the same strategy as its always been. Except that rather than dominating the OS space, MS are looking to attain the same sort of ubiquity within the cloud service realm. Azure is a platform, Gamepass/Xcloud is their monetization model for that platform.

They embrace gaming/cloud content. Extend their service to the widest audience (cross hardware platforms), and gate it off via their access/service monetization, and by so doing push their competition out, extinguishing their threat.

Its just an evolution of their plan around launch of Xbox One and its TV first strategy, which in turn was entirely in keeping with their motivation for getting into gaming in the first place.

MS are very consistent in that they work on the principle that if you control the dominant platform, you control the market as whole. MSDOS and Windows taught them that.
 
Last edited:

PJX

Member
Like others have already stated, MS puts their games out on PC, they make 1st party games available on Game Pass, and I seem to recall Ori and the Blind Forest being available on the Switch. Phil has a vision but exclusives also have to matter, especially against their main competitor Sony. This guy is butt hurt because the game didn't make it onto one platform? That's why it's stupid to call MS out. This dev is a moron.

Sad Ice Cream GIF
Well said. That's the point a lot of people are missing in this topic.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Its not about being payed to develop an xbox exclusive and wanting it to be on PS5, its about MS shouting from the rooftops that they want barrier free gaming but at the same time are not down with it to cast the first stone and make all of their games available to every gamer.

Thats all there is to it. He is not arguing that MS should bring Ori to PS5 in retrospect specifically but to follow up on their talk and make xbox games available (as a service even) on every console. There is a difference to it, if MS never talked about gaming 4 all, then all is good. Contract is contract and he choose another pub for his upcoming game.
If Sony hadn’t removed the web browser feature from the PS5 you would be able to connect your PS5 via Ethernet cable and play the whole MS first party (and everything else on Game Pass) on your PS5 on xCloud with minimal latency.
 

packy34

Member
Exclusives are the worst part of the industry. They exist solely to sell hardware. The end user has no reason be happy with exclusive titles - other than participation in cringe corporate fanboying. You receive absolutely zero personal benefit when a game is exclusive. It's always better to have options.
 

Bojanglez

The Amiga Brotherhood
What a bunch of nonsense.

Honestly, feels like reading a kid's post, that he is mad that his favorite icecream isn't available at his nearby store, and not a full grown adult who is in the industry long enough to know why exclusives are important to a platform and a console, and why it makes business sense.
He literally points out why console exclusives make sense for platform holders as it stands. His point is that maybe MS would actually make more money if they published their IP on all platforms, he even cited Minecraft's popularity as an example of this model working. Would Minecraft be the cultural phenomenon that it has become if Microsoft was in charge from the start and restricted access to it? I think for certain IP and experiences it would make sense to make it available on everything. I would have thrown Halo Infinite MP on literally everything, even PS and Switch, I still wonder if that might happen eventually.

Console platform loyalty is learned behaviour, kids aren't born console warriors, they become them by being forced to choose a platform and then end up trying to justify their choice. Times are changing and now the hardware is less of the platform the games themselves are becoming platforms themselves. It would be brave of MS to break from the current cycle, but it would be cool to see them try.
 
Its the same strategy as its always been. Except that rather than dominating the OS space, MS are looking to attain the same sort of ubiquity within the cloud service realm. Azure is a platform, Gamepass/Xcloud is their monetization model for that platform.

They embrace gaming/cloud content. Extend their service to the widest audience (cross hardware platforms), and gate it off via their access/service monetization, and by so doing push their competition out, extinguishing their threat.

Its just an evolution of their plan around launch of Xbox One and its TV first strategy, which in turn was entirely in keeping with their motivation for getting into gaming in the first place.

MS are very consistent in that they work on the principle that if you control the dominant platform, you control the market as whole. MSDOS and Windows taught them that.
This doesn't make any sense. If platform exclusivity counts as an EEE strategy, then Sony and Nintendo have been doing the same thing for decades?

This has nothing to do with EEE.
 

Concern

Member
Exclusives are the worst part of the industry. They exist solely to sell hardware. The end user has no reason be happy with exclusive titles - other than participation in cringe corporate fanboying. You receive absolutely zero personal benefit when a game is exclusive. It's always better to have options.


I disagree to an extent. The point of them is bad for consumers who can't afford more than one platform but on the other hand they are made specifically to showcase what said console is capable of. And thats pretty much the best way for them to reel in customers.

This guys is just a clown on a rant. He signed a deal and that's that, nobody signed it for him. I doubt Sony would have let him release on switch.
 
Top Bottom