• 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”

DaGwaphics

Gold Member
Phil has repeatedly said that he wants Gamepass on all consoles. He said he would keep Bungie and let them go independent. What you are saying is that when Phil says something, we shouldnt take him for his word. That when hes says one thing, he meants the complete opposite which quite frankly is pretty fucking ridiculous.

When did they say they would keep Bungie and let them go independent, LOL. Never saw that. Seems impossible, if they went independent they would be just that, independent.

Could things have gone better with Bungie if MS has been more hands off, like they've been with recent additions, maybe.
 

DZ_b_EZ

Member
I can just buy all three platforms, it's no big deal for me. Im poor as fuck with no space in my home, but I'm not crying. Those kids will and do the same thing. Welcome to being a gamer, little Jimmy/Sally.
 

Sosokrates

Gold Member
This is as dumb as someone suggesting

"Hey moon, why dont you put an ori mini game inside fortnite, so fortnite players can play ori."
He wont do that because it does not make business sense, similarly how it dont make business sense to put xbox games on playstation and vice versa.
 
Last edited:

Sosokrates

Gold Member
Phil has repeatedly said that he wants Gamepass on all consoles. He said he would keep Bungie and let them go independent. What you are saying is that when Phil says something, we shouldnt take him for his word. That when hes says one thing, he meants the complete opposite which quite frankly is pretty fucking ridiculous.

Phil does want gamepass on all consoles, but sony doesent.

Balls in sonys court.

But it will never happen because Microsofts endgame is to have 100s of millions gamepass subs, and sony want this too.
So even though Phil says he does not want to make another platform smaller, I think it is somewhat contradictory because they are competing for the same customers.
 
Last edited:

cireza

Member
Immediately following that with you can only play them on Xbox platforms
A number of Xbox games had native ports to Switch (including Ori), and XCloud is available on several platforms (phones...). All of their games are also on PC day one. And you only see this with MS, certainly not Sony and Nintendo.

Why should MS commit to even more efforts ? I don't see the point here. This rant is ridiculous and not justified, overall.
 
Last edited:

Tripolygon

Member
Is he though? Or is he just out there selling the virtues of the platform they are building and how accessible it is in general.
Yes, he is. All these platforms are made to be accessible in one form or another. You can use PS Now on PC, Stadia, Luna on a Phone, or PC Browser. It is part of their respective job to make their platform more attractive by securing IPs that would attract more customers. Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Sony, Google all do it. When you buy an IP, Studio, Publisher and make all multiplatform games as exclusive to your platform, you are in fact reducing the number of people who would otherwise play those games. If GTA suddenly became a console exclusive, it would not sell 150 million copies. If Microsoft decided to make Minecraft exclusive to Xbox platforms, it would not have the global reach it has now.

A number of Xbox games had native ports to Switch (including Ori), and XCloud is available on several platforms (phones...). All of their games are also on PC day one. And you only see this with MS, certainly not Sony and Nintendo.

Why should MS commit to even more efforts ? I don't see the point here. This rant is ridiculous and not justified, overall.
They are not committing to more effort, the responsibility was not on Microsoft. Moon Studios wanted to bring those games on Switch and according to Thomas on PlayStation as well. It would have cost Microsoft nothing as the game was profitable for them and Moon Studios already.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
when Concern Concern and other known apostles enter a thread sword and shield as if they are being personally attacked and clearly not having read ANYTHING. Or have yet to actually add any perspective or something useful to the conversation based on the actual article/era post other than fabricating moon studio head as being disgruntled, lol....

Imagine saying people are warring when you yourself have been banned multiple times. You really cant make this shit up.

Oh Snap GIF
 
If there were no more exclusives and every game had to be playable on any platform, then why even have multiple platforms?

Exclusive games are usually so awesome because they only have to focus on ONE system making it possible to really tune the experience to make it as good as possible. Otherwise, they spend a lot of time trying to optimize their games for a bunch of different platforms that have different toolsets and tech which only complicates things.
 

MiguelItUp

Gold Member
This guy just trying to get some attention?

I mean, if anything, I think it's fair to say that the AAA industry in general is practically "scared of change." It's why there are so many (not ALL) titles that are so similar and share the same "successful" mechanics.
 
Last edited:

Tripolygon

Member
If there were no more exclusives and every game had to be playable on any platform, then why even have multiple platforms?

Exclusive games are usually so awesome because they only have to focus on ONE system making it possible to really tune the experience to make it as good as possible. Otherwise, they spend a lot of time trying to optimize their games for a bunch of different platforms that have different toolsets and tech which only complicates things.
Exclusive games are a great way to differentiate your platform from others. They are however not a prerequisite to tuning an experience or being a good game.
 
What a dipshit.

Thanks to Xbox, I can play his games on my shitty old Xbone, my laptop, my PC, my Switch, my phone, etc through XCloud. I don't have to afford the Series X or a beefy PC like the harps about.

Literally the only place it doesn't run is a direct competitor's hardware because that competitor doesn't want XCloud.
 
Last edited:

Tripolygon

Member
I think MS are waiting for The Last of Us II to be released on Xbox first, and I am sure that they will allow some other Xbox games on PS later.
Did Nintendo release Mario on Xbox before Ori was made for Switch? Did Microsoft take away Minecraft on PS? They allowed Ori on the Switch because they saw no overlap between the player base. That's it. It is not because they are waiting for PS exclusives on Xbox. In fact if Sony allowed them right now to launch Gamepass on PS they would jump for joy in an instant.
 

Tripolygon

Member
And you would still be complaining for whatever reason.
Why would I be complaining? I don't care what these corporations do with their IPs. I don't care about exclusive games, I can play any game I want if I want it enough.
 
Last edited:

Alexios

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Ridiculous points all around. Indeed, corps aren't charities to make games for other platforms/corps to reap the benefits.

If you want to make a game that benefits you the most and thus is for all the platforms (or paid off for exclusivity to make up for the missing sales elsewhere and a bonus on top for the trouble) you don't beg a first party platform holder for aid and do it by yourself (or with a third party publisher).
 
Last edited:
I can't take any dev seriously that doesn't understand the benefits and reasoning behind having exclusives for a platform. It's like they want to hold back creativity and innovation.
 

Concern

Member
What a dipshit.

Thanks to Xbox, I can play his games on my shitty old Xbone, my laptop, my PC, my Switch, my phone, etc through XCloud. I don't have to afford the Series X or a beefy PC like the harps about.

Literally the only place it doesn't run is a direct competitor's hardware because that competitor doesn't want XCloud.


You're just not a "critical thinker". Thats all it is.

/s
 

DarkMage619

Member
In fact if Sony allowed them right now to launch Gamepass on PS they would jump for joy in an instant.
So it's clear that the reason MS doesn't have more games on PlayStation is because Sony is blocking it not because MS or Phil Spencer is being hypocritical. Despite Sony blocking more MS games on their platform, MS has still delivered titles big and small to PlayStation like that new Skyrim update, Minecraft Dungeons, Psychonauts 2, the Quake remaster, and they honored the exclusive deals like Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathloop. They had done FAR more than any other platform holder to put their games as many places as possible. You can all MS many things but being hypocritical isn't one of them.
 
Last edited:

Tripolygon

Member
Ridiculous points all around. Indeed, corps aren't charities to make games for other platforms/corps to reap the benefits.

If you want to make a game that benefits you the most and thus is for all the platforms (or paid off for exclusivity to make up for the missing sales elsewhere and a bonus on top for the trouble) you don't beg a first party platform holder for aid and do it by yourself (or with a third party publisher).
1. He literally is making the same point as you.
2. He didn't beg Microsoft to Publish Ori, Microsoft went to them.
3. This is specifically why their next game is multiplatform, they signed with Private Division instead of Microsoft again.
 

Alexios

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
1. He literally is making the same point as you.
2. He didn't beg Microsoft to Publish Ori, Microsoft went to them.
3. This is specifically why their next game is multiplatform, they signed with Private Division instead of Microsoft again.
The ridiculous point is to pretend to be unable to see why first parties aren't charities and instead twist it into being afraid of change etc. Third party publishers naturally also make deals to benefit themselves, not just the developer they signed on. If he thinks he'll get more out of it cool, move on.

Eventually when he has enough to fund/market his own projects and reap ALL the benefits from them he may not need Private Division, I guess we can except him to shit on how they take advantage of developers because they're afraid of change and make deals that benefit themselves, right???
 
Last edited:

Tripolygon

Member
So it's clear that the reason MS doesn't have more games on PlayStation is because Sony is blocking it not because MS or Phil Spencer is a hypocritical. Despite Sony blocking more MS games on their platform, MS has still delivered titles big and small to PlayStation like that new Skyrim update, Minecraft Dungeons, Psychonauts 2, the Quake remaster, and they honored the exclusive deals like Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathloop. They had done FAR more than any other platform holder to put their games as many places as possible. You can all MS many things but being hypocritical isn't one of them.
It is clear the reason why PSNow is not on Xbox is that drumroll Microsoft will never allow that.

1. Skyrim update was in the works before acquisition
2. One of the biggest platforms for Minecraft is PlayStation
3. Double Fine is contractually obligated to release Psychonauhts 2 on PS4 (Kick Stater Campaign Promise)
4. You don't get kudos for honoring a contract you are obligated to.

You are pointing out things that were in the works before Microsoft acquired those studios therefore are contractually obligated to honor. Again Business. They are not contractually obligated to release Starfield for example on PlayStation so they are not, Sony is contractually obligated to release MLB The Show on Xbox so they are. See how that works?
 
Last edited:

EverydayBeast

thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Betting and gambling on game matches in COD, Halo, could have players doing $10, $20 parlays. I can't remember gambling being used in video games. There's a lot of reasons SONY and Nintendo are "scared of change" from their perspective they're CONSISTANT, they're respected in the industry. You don't have the PS2 without the PS1 you don't have the PS4 without the PS3 and so on.
 

EverydayBeast

thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
Betting and gambling on game matches in COD, Halo, could have players doing $10, $20 parlays. I can't remember gambling being used in video games. There's a lot of reasons SONY and Nintendo are "scared of change" from their perspective they're CONSISTANT, they're respected in the industry. You don't have the PS2 without the PS1 you don't have the PS4 without the PS3 and so on.
 

cireza

Member
One of the biggest platforms for Minecraft is PlayStation
I don't see why this implies that MS has to release Minecraft Dungeon on it. Still, they committed to it. They didn't have to put Ori, Cuphead and Hellblade on Switch either. I don't see any contracts here they had to honor.

Street Fighter was huge on 360, didn't stop Sony from making V exclusive to PS4. And this happens all the time. No reason for FF XVI to be a timed exclusive either, yet it is etc...
 
Last edited:

BreakOut

Member
“My mom bought me a car to drive to work, she invested in me and believed I’d be able to buy my own car eventually. She was right, I did but now that I got a new one she won’t let me give the car she bought for me away, I can’t believe she won’t sign over the pink slip! She wants it back now that I’ve got my own.”

The nerve of her!
 

Tripolygon

Member
I don't see why this implies that MS has to release Minecraft Dungeon on it. Still, they committed to it. They didn't have to put Ori, Cuphead and Hellblade on Switch either. I don't see any contracts here they had to honor.

Street Fighter was huge on 360, didn't stop Sony from making V exclusive to PS4. And this happens all the time. No reason for FF XVI to be a timed exclusive either, yet it is etc...
Ok? Never said they couldn't make it exclusive if they wanted to but they won't. It is a multibillion-dollar property that makes more money on PlayStation than on Xbox. Cuphead and Ori are smaller indie prestige properties with very little overlap between Nintendo and Xbox player base so they can easily agree to that. Hellblade was a self-funded multiplatform game released before the studio was acquired. The game was heavily pushed by Sony in the beginning. I believe hellblade for switch was in development long before the acquisition as well.

Again at no point have I claimed they can't buy or make their IP exclusives. What they do with their IP is their business.
 
Last edited:

dcmk7

Member
So it's clear that the reason MS doesn't have more games on PlayStation is because Sony is blocking it not because MS or Phil Spencer is a hypocritical. Despite Sony blocking more MS games on their platform, MS has still delivered titles big and small to PlayStation like that new Skyrim update, Minecraft Dungeons, Psychonauts 2, the Quake remaster, and they honored the exclusive deals like Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathloop. They had done FAR more than any other platform holder to put their games as many places as possible. You can all MS many things but being hypocritical isn't one of them.
Nonsensical as usual.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
So it's clear that the reason MS doesn't have more games on PlayStation is because Sony is blocking it not because MS or Phil Spencer is a hypocritical. Despite Sony blocking more MS games on their platform, MS has still delivered titles big and small to PlayStation like that new Skyrim update, Minecraft Dungeons, Psychonauts 2, the Quake remaster, and they honored the exclusive deals like Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathloop. They had done FAR more than any other platform holder to put their games as many places as possible. You can all MS many things but being hypocritical isn't one of them.
We've gone full spectrum now, folks.
 

dcmk7

Member
It is clear the reason why PSNow is not on Xbox is that drumroll Microsoft will never allow that.

1. Skyrim update was in the works before acquisition
2. One of the biggest platforms for Minecraft is PlayStation
3. Double Fine is contractually obligated to release Psychonauhts 2 on PS4 (Kick Stater Campaign Promise)
4. You don't get kudos for honoring a contract you are obligated to.

You are pointing out things that were in the works before Microsoft acquired those studios therefore are contractually obligated to honor. Again Business. They are not contractually obligated to release Starfield for example on PlayStation so they are not, Sony is contractually obligated to release MLB The Show on Xbox so they are. See how that works?

People seem to have trouble differentiating between honouring previous commitments and good will.
 

cireza

Member
Again at no point have I claimed they can't buy or make their IP exclusives. What they do with their IP is their business.
As a publisher it is literally your job to give exposure to the game you are publishing
Immediately following that with you can only play them on Xbox platforms. How exactly is that allowing more people to play the games? When you buy a publisher and immediately make all the games that would have been multiplatform now exclusive how is that opening up the games to more players?

You were arguing that they have to give exposure, clearly implying they should release exclusive games on other platforms. So is it fine for them to handle their published games however they want (like every other publisher out there by the way), or, because they are MS, do they have to release their games on every single platform for whatever reason ? Because otherwise, and because they are MS, it is not acceptable.

And by the way, picking a game like Ori and giving it the exposure it had allows much more people to play the game. Otherwise, it could have ended like the thousands of indy games you see out there. It would have never had the form it got without MS funding. Of course they have to be grateful.
 

yurinka

Member
Like the other two, in addition to pay for 3rd party full console exclusives, MS also pays for timed console exclusives keeping the IP for the indie. So the Moon could have asked for that deal instead of for the full exclusive one.

MS yes, for some games they are a multiplatform 3rd party, but for other ones they keep some games console exclusive because it makes sense since they sell a console and exclusives are one of the main selling points of a console.
 
Last edited:

carlosrox

Banned
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 remember his comments coming off as a bit salty, jealous, and petty. That was my issue with them, not so much the criticism itself.

----

EDMIX EDMIX What I meant was I've never heard of a dev openly discussing a newly released mainline game as if it's a failure that's in the past and just how much they're gonna restructure the entire series and change series' leads and all that. The game is very new and already they're talking about it like it's dead or something. Usually they talk about fixing the current game. I mean look at Cyberpunk or GTA Collection. You don't see them talking about the NEXT game being better, they talk about fixing what they just released.
 
Last edited:

Tripolygon

Member
You were arguing that they have to give exposure, clearly implying they should release exclusive games on other platforms. So is it fine for them to handle their published games however they want (like every other publisher out there by the way), or, because they are MS, do they have to release their games on every single platform for whatever reason ? Because otherwise, and because they are MS, it is not acceptable.
Every publisher Sony, Microsoft EA, has to advertise the games they are Publishing, it is written in the contracts otherwise no developer is going to sign with you for an exclusivity deal. The same thing goes for the Music, Movie, and TV industry. Nothing I said there meant they had to release on any platform they didn't want to. That is your interpretation.
And by the way, picking a game like Ori and giving it the exposure it had allows much more people to play the game. Otherwise, it could have ended like the thousands of indy games you see out there. It would have never had the form it got without MS funding. Of course they have to be grateful.
As the publisher, you are obligated to advertise the game that is part of publishing. It is business, not altruism. They don't have to be grateful for providing a service to Microsoft. They created one of the best games last gen with critical and commercial success. The studio did an amazing job. They have earned every accolade and praise they get for what they created.
 

SlimeGooGoo

Party Gooper
They have already talked about ES6 being exclusive. It's probably safe for you to give up this dream.
You think future Fallout, Doom, Wolfenstein, Elder Scrolls, etc, are going PS and the like?
All of those games are coming to PS5 eventually.

They are very likely to adopt Square-Enix's strategy with timed exclusives -- release exclusively on a single platform for 12/24 months, and then release the same game again (with some bonus content DLC or whatever) on other platforms but at the full release price. There's a lot of money to be lost on not doing so.

The only games that will stay on Xbox are those IPs heavily associated with the Xbox brand.
 
How it sounds like he was fine with it being exclusive to the Xbox at first but since Ori is now known as one of the biggest metroidvania type games that's where he's like it needs to be everywhere.
 

DaGwaphics

Gold Member
All of those games are coming to PS5 eventually.

They are very likely to adopt Square-Enix's strategy with timed exclusives -- release exclusively on a single platform for 12/24 months, and then release the same game again (with some bonus content DLC or whatever) on other platforms but at the full release price. There's a lot of money to be lost on not doing so.

The only games that will stay on Xbox are those IPs heavily associated with the Xbox brand.

Spencer has already said that Stanfield is Xbox ecosystem exclusive and in the same breath mentioned ES6 going the same route. I don't know what more to tell you.

Just because something once existed as multi-platform doesn't mean it stays that way (SFV says hello), hell, Mario was multi-plat in the very early days.

Just keep believing I guess. When do you figure Spiderman will get released on Xbox, I mean those always used to be multi-plat?
 
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.

At the end of the day, he knew Microsoft were a platform holder. He was aware of their business strategy at the time of signing the deals, their position in the gaming market at the time etc., and still proceeded to work with them. Microsoft did what they were obligated to do in marketing the game, yes, but they had no obligation to release the Ori games on PlayStation, either, and still don't.

He is using this discussion as a plea for Microsoft to release his games onto PlayStation platforms, essentially, and misinterpreting Phil's words of "play anywhere" to do so. He's a smart guy, so he must know that on some level his argument is disingenuous, because logic indicates what would happen if Microsoft suddenly provided all of their games on PlayStation (or Nintendo, for that matter), or if they didn't compete to secure exclusive content whether through 3P exclusivity deals or publisher acquisitions: the brand would die.

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?

I think the reason for the contrast is because of the delicate frugality of the dynamic they know they have with PlayStation as a gaming division, and what they want with Sony as a client for Azure. They know part of being a competitive platform holder is to secure content exclusive to your platform and ecosystem, and Microsoft knew in their case they needed to make a more drastic gamble considering how 8th gen went for them.

Basically, knew they needed to up 1P output, and also knew companies like Sony would continue to pursue moneyhatting timed exclusivity deals with 3P publishers. Additionally, Sony would be able to leverage their historical system install bases and division revenues to get sweeter deals compared to Microsoft, who would probably need to pay more for a similar timed exclusive, and all of that starts to add up.

So, how do you handicap a competitor in terms of moneyhatting timed exclusive games, and also bolster 1P output at the same time? Well, you purchase 3P developers and publishers, and that's what Microsoft did. And to do so, they've leveraged their own strengths of financial resources, Windows/PC, and Azure powering GamePass as a way of providing the content to devices outside of the Xbox device family to entice those 3P developers and publishers into being acquired.

People need to keep in mind that it wasn't just Microsoft approaching Zenimax, or Ninja Theory etc. Other purchasers were as well, and in some of those cases I'm almost certain Sony was one of said potential purchasers in the bidding. So no one company is more "bad" than the other for going through with an acquisition because many companies had and continue to have the INTENT of making similar acquisitions, and will do so if they win out. But it's usually the one who offers the best mix between monies to pay, available resources, reach, support, and creative freedom (with pre-existing historical relations also potentially coming into play) who wins out in these acquisition biddings, which also usually shows that it's not just sheer money but merit on the part of the buyer, that gets them those teams.

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?

It doesn't exist.

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.

Well, we can go back in time and ask Nintendo fans the same thing when Sony took Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, IPs exclusively associated with Nintendo prior, from Nintendo's then-current system. People who always bring up "it was just Square and Enix choosing a different platform!" never consider the fact Sony was already signing exclusivity deals with 3P publishers as early as 1994, that sort of stuff just wasn't talked about back then because space was a resource in gaming magazines and the internet was just starting to come into mainstream use that decade.

We can also go back and as Sega fans when Sony did things like lock away future Tomb Raider games from the Saturn, or prevented Code Veronica from being RE3 the way Shinji Mikami wished (he's even suggested this in a recent interview) due to contract bindings for mainline PS1 RE games. Were Nintendo and Sega fans possibly upset over these developments? Of course. But you know what else they did? They simply adapted and bought into the ecosystem providing the content that was missing on other platforms.

I think that is the reality of the results from these kind of deals certain people are scared of seeing happen, because they have led themselves to believe such happening will inversely hurt their preferred platform. But if this were true, we would have already seen it happened because a similar situation happened with the PS3/360/Wii gen and yet all three of those systems ended up doing pretty well (some sooner than others, but still).

Players will adapt, one way or another. They always have.

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.

But then Xbox would be dead because the truth is, what may work for media formats where the technology is more or less matured and the content is passive, doesn't work for mediums where the technology is still evolving and the content requires direct input from the end user, the way games do.

Open platform didn't work in 1993 with the 3DO because of those reasons, and it won't necessarily work in 2021 for those same reasons. At earliest we're another generation out where a mass-market, mainstream open-platform gaming solution can really be entertained, where the device you play on truly doesn't matter anymore and applies to ALL current and future platform holders, because otherwise the one who embraces open platform i.e putting their games on every rival platform is the one that forfeits their right as a platform holder.

And doing so, would mean also forfeiting a reason to invest massive R&D into technologies and solutions that could potentially enable a true open platform market, not to mention having a significantly reduced voice/input in the industry at large WRT where the market eventually trends.

It's just not realistic of something to pursue right now; Microsoft's current solution is probably the best balance between that ambition at an idealistic level, and in what way it can actually be implemented in a practical, business sense without destroying the Xbox brand.

-
 
Last edited:
I think most people understand the importance of exclusives. Well, except for Xbox guys when they want to argue that they aren't that important.

To me, it just seems this dev is calling out Phil on his BS about wanting to get on more platforms and not being about console warring or competing with Sony and Nintendo.
 

DarkMage619

Member
It is clear the reason why PSNow is not on Xbox is that drumroll Microsoft will never allow that.

1. Skyrim update was in the works before acquisition
2. One of the biggest platforms for Minecraft is PlayStation
3. Double Fine is contractually obligated to release Psychonauhts 2 on PS4 (Kick Stater Campaign Promise)
4. You don't get kudos for honoring a contract you are obligated to.

You are pointing out things that were in the works before Microsoft acquired those studios therefore are contractually obligated to honor. Again Business. They are not contractually obligated to release Starfield for example on PlayStation so they are not, Sony is contractually obligated to release MLB The Show on Xbox so they are. See how that works?
Your point about PS Now is funny. Most PlayStation owners don't want to use it let alone Xbox gamers. Sony has shown no real interest in supporting PS Now too much in fact they are trying to phase the brand out in favor of PS+. That isn't anything like what MS want to do with Gamepass. So a complete apples and oranges comparison.

Contracts can be broken. MS was under no obligation to update Skyrim at all. They didn't for Hellblade. Minecraft is a big property and Minecraft Dungeons was a NEW game that didn't have to be released on PlayStation at all. Sony doesn't own the MLB. They didn't have much say in what platforms the game would be released on. Proof point when it was up to Sony they made it PlayStation exclusive.

MS does own Minecraft, Elder Scrolls, Quake, and Psychonauts. They have released new games on PlayStation AFTER MS acquired various properties. How many Sony/Nintendo owned properties have hit Xbox? You are going out of your way to downplay what no other platform holder is doing AT ALL.

There is nothing hypocritical about Phil Spencer's stance. He wants more people to have access to more games and he doesn't require you to buy an Xbox to do so. That is unlike any other platform holder out there. It is business and MS business isn't to force anyone to purchase their hardware to play their games and that is hardly something to scorn.
 

SlimeGooGoo

Party Gooper
Spencer has already said that Stanfield is Xbox ecosystem exclusive and in the same breath mentioned ES6 going the same route. I don't know what more to tell you.

Just because something once existed as multi-platform doesn't mean it stays that way (SFV says hello), hell, Mario was multi-plat in the very early days.

Just keep believing I guess. When do you figure Spiderman will get released on Xbox, I mean those always used to be multi-plat?
Already told you, it's a long term goal, not a short term one.

Playstation games are already being released on PC, with a timed exclusivity period.

It doesn't take a genius to see the grand scheme of these corporations -- money.
 
But then Xbox would be dead because the truth is, what may work for media formats where the technology is more or less matured and the content is passive, doesn't work for mediums where the technology is still evolving and the content requires direct input from the end user, the way games do.

Open platform didn't work in 1993 with the 3DO because of those reasons, and it won't necessarily work in 2021 for those same reasons. At earliest we're another generation out where a mass-market, mainstream open-platform gaming solution can really be entertained, where the device you play on truly doesn't matter anymore and applies to ALL current and future platform holders, because otherwise the one who embraces open platform i.e putting their games on every rival platform is the one that forfeits their right as a platform holder.

And doing so, would mean also forfeiting a reason to invest massive R&D into technologies and solutions that could potentially enable a true open platform market, not to mention having a significantly reduced voice/input in the industry at large WRT where the market eventually trends.

It's just not realistic of something to pursue right now; Microsoft's current solution is probably the best balance between that ambition at an idealistic level, and in what way it can actually be implemented in a practical, business sense without destroying the Xbox brand.

-

I am not disagreeing with you. The walled gardens are all alive and well on streaming services right now. Everyone has like 5+ subs.

But Phil shouldn't come out and say things that make him look like he's a champion for gamers and that Sony is bad because they have a walled garden, but Microsoft is good because they don't have as many barriers. It's something a politician would say to bend the truth to their narrative rather than being completely honest.
 
I am not disagreeing with you. The walled gardens are all alive and well on streaming services right now. Everyone has like 5+ subs.

But Phil shouldn't come out and say things that make him look like he's a champion for gamers and that Sony is bad because they have a walled garden, but Microsoft is good because they don't have as many barriers. It's something a politician would say to bend the truth to their narrative rather than being completely honest.
Yeah I can agree that there is some doublespeak from Spencer on this and it's given some mixed signals. They did this before when replying to press about if Bethesda games like Starfield would still come to PS5, that's why so many sites ran with clickbait-style titles.

They've cleaned all of that Zenimax/Bethesda messaging up now, but it's probably time to just fully own up to the fact that they're doing what they need to do in order to secure content for their ecosystem, and that includes a mix of building studios internally, acquiring 3P developers and publishers, and securing timed exclusive 3P content.

Or basically, what Sony is doing. I also think internally, Microsoft obviously sees Sony and Nintendo as competition in the gaming space, arguably much more than Google or Amazon, but there's a lot of corporate politics to tread there because they'd likely much rather work with Sony and Nintendo to secure them as clients of Azure rather than put them in a position where they decide to work with Google instead, for example.

And probably on some level, I get a feeling the Big 3 would much rather they remain the big platform holders in the industry for the foreseeable future rather than risk any one of them getting pushed out and creating a vacuum for an unknown entity to make a serious bid into the space. That's why the 3 of them work together in a lot of ways behind the scenes, even if they're still trying to sell the most hardware/software/subscriptions etc. among each other.
 

Fitzchiv

Member
Late to this party, but to be clear: I am so, so fucking sick of the creative arts crowd wishing broad intellectual communism on everyone. Sony Playstation wouldn't exist without walled gardens and competition, nor would Xbox, or Nintendo. There are winners and losers, it drives improvement, and consumers make choices. I assue Moon Studios is a Non Profit organisation then?

No of course not. Fuck off.
 

Tripolygon

Member
Your point about PS Now is funny. Most PlayStation owners don't want to use it let alone Xbox gamers. Sony has shown no real interest in supporting PS Now too much in fact they are trying to phase the brand out in favor of PS+. That isn't anything like what MS want to do with Gamepass. So a complete apples and oranges comparison.
You can find it funny all you want but;

1. PSNow has been in operation since 2014
2. Is available in 19 countries,
3. Has 1296 games counting regional exclusives. Over 800 per region and more are added each month.

What customers choose to spend their money on is their business. I personally don't prefer streaming games as I prefer owning the games I play. Merging both services into one makes sense and It's the same thing Microsoft did, merging their cloud streaming platform into the other Xbox services to create a unified service.

Contracts can be broken. MS was under no obligation to update Skyrim at all. They didn't for Hellblade. Minecraft is a big property and Minecraft Dungeons was a NEW game that didn't have to be released on PlayStation at all. Sony doesn't own the MLB. They didn't have much say in what platforms the game would be released on. Proof point when it was up to Sony they made it PlayStation exclusive.
Apparently, Microsoft disagrees because they are clearly honoring previous contracts PlayStation has with Bethesda. MLB The Show was made by Sony SD as a PlayStation exclusive but now under new terms have to make the game multiplatform. That's how contracts work. MLBPA licenses the IP out under certain terms.
MS does own Minecraft, Elder Scrolls, Quake, and Psychonauts. They have released new games on PlayStation AFTER MS acquired various properties. How many Sony/Nintendo owned properties have hit Xbox? You are going out of your way to downplay what no other platform holder is doing AT ALL.
MLB The Show is developed by Sony SD, if they didn't like the terms of the deal with MLBPA they could create their own game but would lose all the players and teams that make these games worth anything. You are listing multiplatform IPs bought by Microsoft as if they created them. Just like how Sony is under contractual obligation to develop MLB as multiplatform, Microsoft is contractually obligated to release those games. Ghostwire, Deathloop are time-exclusive contracts between Bethesda and PlayStation. Psychonaut 2 is a Kickstarter contract between backers with Double Fine. After those contracts are fulfilled Microsoft can do whatever they want with Bethesda and Double Fine. There is nothing to downplay.
There is nothing hypocritical about Phil Spencer's stance. He wants more people to have access to more games and he doesn't require you to buy an Xbox to do so. That is unlike any other platform holder out there. It is business and MS business isn't to force anyone to purchase their hardware to play their games and that is hardly something to scorn.
There is something very hypocritical about saying you don't want to take away games from people yet you take away multiplatform IPs that would have been released on other platforms and make them exclusive. That is the literal definition of hypocrisy.
 
Top Bottom