Well, I think I hit a nerve. And yet, for all the words, you didn't actually post anything. Not a single example or fact to back up literally anything. You just wrote: "Ryan MUST be doing something SIGNIFICANT because he's the CEO! He ALONE has made PlayStation successful!".You need to rejoin reality if you want to have this discussion if you think increasing 20% revenue but losing 1+ million subs is anything short of significant.
The number of subscribers mean jack shit. He's the CEO and chairman of Playstation, you think he cares more about the number of subscribers than money?
If you are the CEO of a company and you choose to have subscriber base of 1 billion and making 1 dollar off each of them, over making 1 trillion dollars off of 1 player, than you'd failed miserably.
If Phil had the opportunity of making more money and he chose for more subscribers instead, Satya Nadela would boot his ass before you can even blink.
The title of this thread is:
In your honest opinion, who is the better gaming company leader? Phil Spencer or Jim Ryan?
And not who do you think is the most charitable leader for us poor gamers my dude.
Oh yeah and you only chose one aspect out of all the areas I've listed as improvements, good ol cherry picker.
Oh yeah and Jim didn't make any improvements before. He's just a pleb who the stakeholders chose to run the company. I mean Jim Ryan has only started working at Sony since 1994.
But anyways back to your 'point'. No matter how you look at it, it's always easier to show signs of improvement if before it was total shit. Especially when Xbox was in despereation mode and begged daddy Microsoft for help. You need not look any further than Xbox fans themselves. When shit was grim for Xbox, Xbox fans would be happy with any shitty exclusive that came along. Because there's nothing else to look forward to. If there's even a tiny diamond in a turd, the diamond would be what catches people's eyes. But if there's a billion diamonds it's tough to find the biggest and brightest one.
Having the pressure of inherting a successful business and turn it into an even more successful company with limited funds is way tougher than begging daddy for help and stick a diamond in a turd to get people's attention.
The Xbox 360 days are a great success for Xbox. Satya Nadela saw that. He also saw that the Xbox almost got ran to the ground with 1 dumb ass presentation. Satya knows he has awar chest. And he knows, just like many people do that if you can't win the game then you need to change the game. You ain't so bright if you think that's a genius idea from Phil. If you've got the money, changing the game you can't win at before is a relatively simple task compared to normal situations.
Indeed time is simple but you don't seem to get it. Jim Ryan joined Sony back in 1994. You think he made no meaningful contributions? You think the stakeholders will choose a charitable nice pleb over someone who has consistently shown a good business mindset and delivered consistent results in the form of big ass numbers with flying colors at the bottom line?
Indeed projects like developing games take time. But climbing up the corporate ladder of this magnitude takes a lot more time and effort. 36 Years to be exact.
Wether you can publicly find Jim Ryan's contributions or not, stakeholders dont take the CEO position likely. Its their money they're betting with. Betting on someone who has no visible contributions while before it was ran by many succesful leaders is the last thing any stakeholder would do.
On the other side, Xbox exists today because Phil Spencer worked to keep it alive. Literally - without Spencer, Microsoft was apparently pretty close to simply getting out of gaming until he convinced them to stay in the game. Stepping in and keeping the brand alive at its lowest point VS stepping in and raising the brand's prices at its highest point?
You didn't hit anything besides your own wall of ignorance and fantasy land. If Phil wasnt there, Microsoft would just find a different poster boy to splash the money. It isn't much of a big difference who splashes the money as long as there's money.Well, I think I hit a nerve. And yet, for all the words, you didn't actually post anything. Not a single example or fact to back up literally anything. You just wrote: "Ryan MUST be doing something SIGNIFICANT because he's the CEO! He ALONE has made PlayStation successful!".
As of today, right now, Jim Ryan's PlayStation's biggest change from his predecessors is its pricing structure. That's literally it. Everything else is just continuing along from the work left behind from House, Boyd, and Yoshida's excellent work at the start of the PS4 era. When the GaaS titles start landing, we'll see the fruits of Ryan's work. Until then, Jim Ryan hasn't really "done" much besides charge more for less.
On the other side, Xbox exists today because Phil Spencer worked to keep it alive. Literally - without Spencer, Microsoft was apparently pretty close to simply getting out of gaming until he convinced them to stay in the game. Stepping in and keeping the brand alive at its lowest point VS stepping in and raising the brand's prices at its highest point?
Well, Spencer and Nadella tell the same story. If you want to call it into question, that's fine - but there's nothing to support it given the absolutely disaster that was the Xbone.Keeping the platform on life support seems like lip service to me to dramatize the state Xbox was in. Doubtful it was ever seriously considered
The fact remains that Phil hasn’t done much to engender excitement for the platform despite keeping it alive. The problems with managing studios are long lasting, unresolved, and seemingly with no end in sight.
Ybarra has said to me before Xbox almost died off so people can make of that what they wantWell, Spencer and Nadella tell the same story. If you want to call it into question, that's fine - but there's nothing to support it given the absolutely disaster that was the Xbone.
As for generating excitement, Xbox is currently having its best generation ever, according to their PR statements. Game Pass is carrying the Xbox brand right now, and it's going so well, PlayStation have taken steps to emulate it. I'd say he's doing something, given that success.
Thread should have ended here.I will never ever understand you guys fascination with CEOs.
Well, Spencer and Nadella tell the same story. If you want to call it into question, that's fine - but there's nothing to support it given the absolutely disaster that was the Xbone.
As for generating excitement, Xbox is currently having its best generation ever, according to their PR statements. Game Pass is carrying the Xbox brand right now, and it's going so well, PlayStation have taken steps to emulate it. I'd say he's doing something, given that success.
Reading your post, you must hate good quality games.Sorry, but I would not change Spencer for Ryan like...ever.
I know that both of them are business executives, but at least Spencer is building something from "ruins" that execs before him left. Ryan just inherited well oiled machine and he still manages to do some really dumb decisions.
Every Sony fan who is claiming that they would not change Ryan for Spencer are just lying to themselves. Imagine pro-consumer moves like free next-gen upgrades, Smart delivery, expansion to more devices etc. with established studios like Naughty Dog, Insomniac, SSM etc.
Well, actually, it was Balmer who was running Microsoft when Mattrick left. Nadella didn't take over for nearly a year later. And even then, it took most of the Xbone generation for Spencer to convince Nadella to let Xbox operate as its own division, instead of being under the greater umbrella of other divisions within Microsoft. That happened around 2018, if memory serves. 2013 to 2018 is an eternity when you're stuck with the Xbone hardware, a decimated first party, and fans who literally abandoned the brand en masse. Spencer kept it going.That's the problem, what you are saying is a dramatized version of the story. Mattrick left after the Xbox One launch and the management team was disjointed. So, during the course of natural business discussions from Nadella (who isn't someone experienced in gaming), Phil won over his confidence. It does not sound like the division was ever in serious danger of being abandoned.
Well, publicly traded companies can't lie about little things like "profits". People go to jail. So, if you believe Microsoft is openly and actively committing fraud, you must have some serious fucking receipts to be dropping those kinds of accusations. Can I see them please?... Under the surface though, they've had to outright buy studios to the tune of $100B. That's a huge cash comittment for something seemingly in such great condition. So I am doubtful of the claims of success just like I'm doubtful of the claims of GamePass profitability and all the other creative accounting used to spin things in a more positive light. The truth is they still haven't delivered to their consumers the games they expected when they became Xbox fans in the OG or 360 era.
Well, publicly traded companies can't lie about little things like "profits". People go to jail. So, if you believe Microsoft is openly and actively committing fraud, you must have some serious fucking receipts to be dropping those kinds of accusations. Can I see them please?
You can't reason with most people. They are not capable of seeing things through others point of view. If you like something and they don't, to them, it's because it's shit and you have bad taste.Well, Spencer and Nadella tell the same story. If you want to call it into question, that's fine - but there's nothing to support it given the absolutely disaster that was the Xbone.
As for generating excitement, Xbox is currently having its best generation ever, according to their PR statements. Game Pass is carrying the Xbox brand right now, and it's going so well, PlayStation have taken steps to emulate it. I'd say he's doing something, given that success.
Public statements in published interviews constitute public declarations. It's why Elon Musk's tweets get him in hot water; there's no such thing as "off the cuff" when you're talking the financials of a publicly traded company. So, as I said: can I see the receipts for Microsoft's fraud?This wasn't in a financial statement. It was some off the cuff comment. You can easily obfuscate reality by hiding costs when talking about profitability, even in financial statements. Companies aren't required to disclose every detail. Microsoft intentionally hides many, and brags about non-financial metrics to positively spin their position.
Well, that's just moving the goal posts, isn't it?... Kudos to Phil for keeping Xbox going, but just doing that isn't some amazing achievement...
Actually it kind of is if Xbox was in fact in that kind of trouble especially considering what he has done for XboxKudos to Phil for keeping Xbox going, but just doing that isn't some amazing achievement.
Public statements in published interviews constitute public declarations. It's why Elon Musk's tweets get him in hot water; there's no such thing as "off the cuff" when you're talking the financials of a publicly traded company. So, as I said: can I see the receipts for Microsoft's fraud?
Well, that's just moving the goal posts, isn't it?
"Phil didn't keep Xbox going - it was never in doubt"
"Ok, sure, it was in doubt, but keeping Xbox going isn't an achievement"
Actually it kind of is if Xbox was in fact in that kind of trouble especially considering what he has done for Xbox
I am not claiming financial fraud...
Only one of these can be true. Pick one.... I'm doubtful of the claims of GamePass profitability ...
Cool, so actually keeping the company in existence isn't the work of a "successful executive". Interesting perspective. How about producing the best console generation in the twenty-year history of your brand:... Just keeping the business going isn't going to cut it in terms of my vantage point of a successful executive for a huge gaming company. It's simply part of your job, and not a particularly difficult one in a business environment that's highly advantageous to the parent company.
Only one of these can be true. Pick one.
Cool, so actually keeping the company in existence isn't the work of a "successful executive". Interesting perspective. How about producing the best console generation in the twenty-year history of your brand:
If you don't want to pick one, we're done. Microsoft aren't being fraudulent and Game Pass is profitable. If you've got receipts that say otherwise, post them: virtually every major news site would be interested to see them. If not, then you're just another drone on the internet who doesn't understand their own wild accusations.No they are not. You can claim profitability by claiming dev costs aren't an expense.
In the post you didn't read, I explained that Xbox is having its best generation in its history.Cool, yeah, that's pretty much a BASELINE expectation of anyone halfway competent at their job at that level.
Interesting perspective that it's some amazing achievement that a gaming company, with the benefit of massive subsidies from Windows, Cloud, and Office, can manage to stay in business.
But, this conversation isn't whether Phil has done a baseline level job. Has he been a disaster? No. But he certainly is far from inspiring anyone with the output of Xbox since he's taken over. The Xbox One was also the "best start" to the Xbox ever during their PR extravaganza.
If you don't want to pick one, we're done. Microsoft aren't being fraudulent and Game Pass is profitable. If you've got receipts that say otherwise, post them: virtually every major news site would be interested to see them. If not, then you're just another drone on the internet who doesn't understand their own wild accusations.
In the post you didn't read, I explained that Xbox is having its best generation in its history.
So, no receipts then. I'd cool it on the fraud accusations, friend.The receipts I have are the additional payroll to the tune of like 10,000 extra employees making games that are Day 1 on GamePass not including the Activision acquisition should it go through. Pretty easy for the service to be profitable when you don't include them.
Xbone had its best gen for about a month before it collapsed. We're two years in to Xbox Series X, and it's still sold out in more than a few places. Do you have any other false equivalencies you'd like to post?Xbox One was also having its "best generation in history" at the start. Gaming is bigger today than in 2010 which is bigger than it was in 2000. Shocker.
But that's not what is this about.Reading your post, you must hate good quality games.
So, no receipts then. I'd cool it on the fraud accusations, friend.
Xbone had its best gen for about a month before it collapsed. We're two years in to Xbox Series X, and it's still sold out in more than a few places. Do you have any other false equivalencies you'd like to post?
Really? We are now trying to pretend, that Xbone was a success just to diminish success of Series X/S?Wasn't just a month. Xbox One ended up not being as big as 360 but it wasn't such a disaster that Xbox was on the cutting room floor.
Really? We are now trying to pretend, that Xbone was a success just to diminish success of Series X/S?
Xbox One had a good sales for a first few months after release. Then came kinectless Xbone that pumped up sales even more, but after one year it was clear, that Xbox One is not IT. Microsoft had to bundle games with system just to get it off shelves and main bulk of sales was always during Black Friday period with discounts and stuff like that.
And yes, Xbox was on the cutting floor when Nadella became CEO of Microsoft. It's well known story.
Everything is matter of perspective.I am NOT saying it was a success. But it still sold 60 million units. Xbox 360 sold 84 million in comparison. It's not AS BiG of a disaster as some claim.
One is a CEO of a publicly traded company, with legal obligations to report profitability and losses to their investors and taxation regulators, who has explained their business is profitable in a published interview.That makes me and Phil about even on the "no receipts thing", then. Cool it on the straw man arguments, because you don't need to be fraudulent to not be transparent about the entire truth.
And you're back to calling Spencer and Nadella liars, as well as other members of this board, who are in a position to know such things, when you're literally just lying about documented facts.Wasn't just a month. Xbox One ended up not being as big as 360 but it wasn't such a disaster that Xbox was on the cutting room floor.
One is a CEO of a publicly traded company, with legal obligations to report profitability and losses to their investors and taxation regulators, who has explained their business is profitable in a published interview.
The other is a forum dweller who believes a USD$2.2 trillion-dollar company is fraudulently declaring
And you're back to calling Spencer and Nadella liars
If you don't have anything meaningful to add other than these fucking insane accusations, we're done with this joke of an exchange.
If Series X/S will sold 70+ million consoles, Microsoft can be happy even if PS5 will sell 110 millions. Because that's the sing that they successfully overcome Xbox One gen and that Xbox brand still has strenght.
For one, Phil Spencer is a legit gamer while Jim Ryan couldn't give a shit about games.
Phil Spencer is an actual developer. He has helped develop games, so he knows the industry 10 times more than Jim Ryan does.
Phil came in when Xbox was on the bones of its ass.
It had just performed what will go down in history as the worst product release in history.
A buisness that had whitled down to only 4 studios and a hand full of game IPs.
They had just let their biggest and most successful studio walk away for nothing.
It was a shit show.
He then had to go into MS HQ and vindicate to the brass that Xbox should be continued and infact invested in.
Remember there was a number of influential stakeholders who were calling for the xbox to be shut down.
Jim Ryan walked into a super successful company with the dominant position in the industry. Most of what he has done has been negative.
It's a no brainer.
Plus, Phil is pretty.
Bullshited everybody with "We believe in generations" statements
"We have always said that we believe in generations," he answered, touting a line that many other Sony execs would repeat in the lead up to the PS5's launch. "We believe that when you go to all the trouble of creating a next-gen console, that it should include features and benefits that the previous generation does not include. And that, in our view, people should make games that can make the most of those features. [...] It is time to give the PlayStation community something new, something different, that can really only be enjoyed on PS5."
For one, Phil Spencer is a legit gamer while Jim Ryan couldn't give a shit about games.
Phil Spencer is an actual developer. He has helped develop games, so he knows the industry 10 times more than Jim Ryan does.
Phil came in when Xbox was on the bones of its ass.
It had just performed what will go down in history as the worst product release in history.
A buisness that had whitled down to only 4 studios and a hand full of game IPs.
They had just let their biggest and most successful studio walk away for nothing.
It was a shit show.
He then had to go into MS HQ and vindicate to the brass that Xbox should be continued and infact invested in.
Remember there was a number of influential stakeholders who were calling for the xbox to be shut down.
Jim Ryan walked into a super successful company with the dominant position in the industry. Most of what he has done has been negative.
It's a no brainer.
Plus, Phil is pretty.
Counterargument is, that without Spencer there would probably be no Xbox. Because he presented a vision, that ultimately convinced Nadella that they not only will stay in gaming business, but they will also start to invest more money. Which directly resulted in Spencer getting a promotion inside of Microsoft.That’s great and all if they can manage that, but it’s a separate discussion from whether or not that should still be judged as great leadership by Phil or merely average expectations. Their huge buying spree of devs should guarantee that level of success, but I won’t credit Phil for buying Activision when he’s literally been given the gift of blank checks to buy large swaths of the industry to cover up a decade worth of failures
Please. Even if you look at a whole quote it directly implies, that when you start new gen, you should throw everything first-party related behind that console and only that console. And of course, people on the internet took it at face value especially since few months before that they almost crucified Matt Booty (XGS chief) for saying, that they expect 1-2 years cross-gen period. So Ryan knew what he was doing when he said that.It's not bullshit lol. It just looks like everyone is talking inside an echo chamber these days. It had nothing to do with games in general. People completely ignored the context around it: