Kacho
Gold Member
Underrated commentWho's going to tell him that Apple doesn't give a flying fuck about privacy either?
Underrated commentWho's going to tell him that Apple doesn't give a flying fuck about privacy either?
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 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.
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.Immediately following that with you can only play them on Xbox platforms
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.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.
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.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.
whenConcern 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.
![]()
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
And you would still be complaining for whatever reason.In fact if Sony allowed them right now to launch Gamepass on PS they would jump for joy in an instant.
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.And you would still be complaining for whatever reason.
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.
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.In fact if Sony allowed them right now to launch Gamepass on PS they would jump for joy in an instant.
1. He literally is making the same point as you.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).
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.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.
It is clear the reason why PSNow is not on Xbox is that drumroll Microsoft will never allow that.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.
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.One of the biggest platforms for Minecraft is PlayStation
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.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...
Nonsensical as usual.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.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?
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?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
It is wild. LolPeople seem to have trouble differentiating between honouring previous commitments and good will.
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.
But you are implying they are not giving games exposure for whatever reason. Maybe try to make some sense then ?Nothing I said there meant they had to release on any platform they didn't want to.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.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?
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.
-
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.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.
You can find it funny all you want but;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.
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.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.
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.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 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.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.