Microsoft needs to make a choice. Either make their console the center piece of their gaming strategy or give that shit up and go full third party, no more hardware. So for "return to xbox" to mean anything then they have to reevaluate their entire strategy. I don't see that happening. I think "return to xbox" is just marketing. Hope I'm wrong though. As I've said elsewhere, I think the industry needs to a strong Xbox. I'm just not sure Asha is the one to do that
When it comes to gaming, the one thing MS have been worst at than any other is making a decision and actually sticking to it. Their constant pivots are the main reason they have lost so much goodwill and market cache, and installing an AI fangirl to lead the division isn't going to make for a miraculous comeback story.
I wouldn't mind eating my own words if proven wrong, but Microsoft's trajectory of failure in gaming is one of the safest bets you can make. As for a "strong Xbox"; while I do think the industry would benefit from a strong 3rd player, IMO it doesn't have to be Xbox and considering the toxicity Microsoft have peddled in the industry (and clearly, continue to), I'd rather it not be them at all.
Sure if there a path forward where they could make Xbox viable again as a hardware platform? Yes. But would I rather a company like Valve step in and supersede them in the gaming hardware space?
Absolutely. It wouldn't need to be Valve, either, though in terms of realistic options that could go at the volume of scale of a PlayStation, the pickings are extremely limited, sadly.
We have heard from multiple sources that Phil was known to be retiring as far ago as last August. Totally normal. The article explains why it broke like it did, which does tell us a lot.
Lots of failings at MS that fall solely at Phil's feet.
You think Phil would retire ahead of a new Xbox system launching, or even its official announcement/reveal in time for the 25th Anniversary? Zero chance.
I am talking about this article and Sarah Bond, it all makes complete sense. She came in, tried to put her stamp on the business like many CEOs do and it didnt work. She had to deal with staff leaving and she rolled with what she thought was right under Phil's sign off.
Everyone was going on about how terrible that marketing campaign was "This is an Xbox" it was BAD. That, is what the article says was Sarahs contribution and Pappa Satya did not like it after seeing the backlash, simple as that.
Sarah Bond wasn't the CEO of Xbox, though. So anything she wanted, had to go through a chain of command for approval & backing. Tom Warrant seems like he's willing to ignore that reality to push the bounty higher on Bond, just as Daddy Nadella would like now that Copilot's made a perfect daughter in Asha for him to "transform" Xbox.
Glass Cliff 101.
Fucking typical. These guys are cowards.
Not surprising really after the bonobo thing with Halo Infinite/343i or "Blacks at Xbox" stuff (though IMO, a ton of these gaming companies were virtue signaling back in 2020/2021 in ways that were so artificial to anyone with a brain. Take-Two's 2021 stream at Summer Games Fest is still one of the most cringe of all time).
Skepticism feels inadequate as a word for this.
Shifting away from multiplatformism would require literally undoing everything Xbox has been doing for the past 8 years.
It would, but Microsoft have shown they don't care about suddenly pivoting on things. Look at Mixer. Look at Nokia--
Whoops, those resulted in closures. Don't want remaining diehards to think I'm suggesting the same could happen with Xbox.
Surely not...
So you stop putting games on PS, Nintendo and PC platforms. You still have the Gamepass problem, which was ineffective enough on Xbox to actually prompt the spread of Xbox titles onto competing consoles. The only thing this achieves is "shrinking your reach". So you get rid of Gamepass - none of your games are enticing enough to even get played by pre-existing Gamepass subscribers, let alone bought.
IMO, if they were to genuinely make the shift, Day 1 on Game Pass would come to an end. As for ending release of games on PS & Nintendo, it wouldn't be the first time a platform holder's done that and then stopped.
SEGA used to license a lot of their games out to NEC/Hudson Soft on the PC-Engine (and then later, push some Saturn games to Windows) before then pivoting away from those strategies when they wanted to double-down on consoles again (MegaDrive/Genesis, Dreamcast).
Now you need to completely retrofit your studios to make genuinely appealing games for the 2026 and beyond market. Oops, you've promoted Matt Booty and have a group of teams that are so fat on current therapy-infected industry work culture and the safety of The War Chest that will not be happy with the reforms needed to do that.
And by the way, you've already spent the better part of 100 billion dollars to try and flip the games market on its head - now you want to burn well over a decade and who knows how much money attempting to revert back???
Hey, if it's something MS does, the money side would be their problem to deal with. I'm just saying, it's not a complete improbability they pivot back to a more traditional approach or, as I'd call it, traditional-lite. Because I do think some of the things suggested in earlier rumors/leaks (i.e Gestridens stuff) would still end up happening.
At this point I don't think the required parties could be convinced of that by Phil "corpo and press hypnosis master" Spencer. Now with him out of the picture?
TBH and as much blame as Phil deserves (and apparently the rigged games press are so afraid to place upon him.....all of a sudden "identity politics" is a good thing eh Warren? Nadella?), I can imagine he was actively
not cool with the multiplatform pivot.
Just read those leaked internal emails, and consider his background. For better (and worst), Phil was a console warrior at heart. I don't think Bond was the same way, but given her working for Phil and having a close business dynamic there, she could at least understand & relate. She was probably the bridge that helped Phil tolerate the multiplatform mandate pivot from up high, if I'm being completely honest.
Someone with his history at the division likely couldn't force himself go play along without someone there to buffer and handle aspects of the shift for him.
As you and others have said, this article is a hit piece and damage control propaganda all at once. While I would theoretically like Xbox to get back into traditional console competition just to pressure Sony to stop with their own multiplatformist, studio mismanagement bullshit, I just cannot fathom a path where that starts for more than 5 minutes before Microsoft finally just shuts everything down.
If MS want to play up the facade of doing it just to say "hey we gave it one final go and it still failed" to then close the hardware side of the division without the ire of rabid diehard fans, then I can see it being worth doing to them. Either way, the software development/publishing side isn't going anywhere, tho I can definitely see some studios getting closed (Compulsion, inXile, even Double Fine, Obsidian & Ninja Theory at this point).
On the plus side, we don't necessarily need a competitive Microsoft for Sony to get a cold shower next gen. Both companies are setting themselves up for that on their own.
Agreed.
I am confused. Satella was Phil's boss and Phil was Bond's boss. If they didn't like what she was doing why did they sign off on it? They invested billions in R&D for the magnus chip. Sounds like they are giving Bond powers her position didn't have. This sounds like a hit job an old fashioned one. Or maybe just maybe they see that Sony in their current financial state is vulnerable. If they are pushing consoles again and the Playstation 6 is not coming out until 2028 or later, they may see opportunity.
That could be a factor here. It kind of reminds back in the '90s when Sony were still weary about going forward with the PlayStation, so they even entertained partnering with SEGA on the Saturn and got an internal team (Epyc) early Saturn dev kits to test development on.
Through that, even if it wasn't the main goal, they got some insights into SEGA's corporate strategy of the time, and probably felt they could do better and take advantage of what they sensed was an indecisive & sloppy strategy coming from SEGA at the time. Maybe Microsoft got some similar insight through signing on as a licensee for PlayStation software and now they feel Sony are vulnerable enough to strike at.
If that's the case, it'll be the ultimate testament of SIE's greed (driven by Sony Corp) throughout this generation as well as their hubris in underestimating a company who were a direct rival not too long ago and still never "officially" exited the hardware market. If it led to a potent humbling, I don't think I'd mind it.
![[Sigma]](/data/avatars/m/701/701747.jpg?1726376545){kind=avatar}
, let alone her own PR pushed the gaming is everywhere on all platform angle just the same…
