• 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.

Phil Spencer promoted to CEO of MS Gaming

Ozriel

Member
Not really a promotion, more like a fancy new title.
He was already a VP reporting directly to Nadella and sitting on the leadership table at MS.

I guess the entire gaming division just got ‘promoted’ at MS.
 

Buggy Loop

Member
 

VAVA Mk2

Member
Sure, things definitely got better after he took over the trainwreck Mattrick had caused. But they still failed to even approach catching up to Sony during last gen, and the same trend seems to largely have continued during the start of this gen.
The worst part is Mattrick in the XBox 6-part documentary still feels he didn't make bad decisions. Fucking tool.
 

EdGalTBR

Member
That remains to be seen I think? So far he's mostly been spending a lot of money (like billions and billions and billions), but Xbox is still far, far behind PlayStation. None of those investments have actually resulted in anything yet. But the expectation is that they will, of course.
Xbox + Zenimax + Activision may beat Playstation revenue.
 

Dr Bass

Member
Xbox + Zenimax + Activision may beat Playstation revenue.
Probably not. Latest Xbox gaming revenue reporting was 3.8 billion. No profit reported.


Zenimax doesn't make much. I think the last estimate was under 500 million a year. I think Activision's latest quarterly results were 1.88 billion in revenue.

Sony's latest quarterly revenue was 10 billion.


But more revenue doesn't matter if you're losing money and the competition is making a profit.

Sony sells more hardware, sells more games, and makes more money. As does Nintendo. That's what makes so many of the discussions on this board so ridiculous. There is a handful of people that just comment, and will argue vehemently, based on facts pulled purely out of their rear. It's really, really, easy to look up numbers and data and see what's actually happening. Microsoft clearly sees gaming as an important source of revenue in the future and they think they can grow it. But I don't think they have a vision, otherwise they would be inventing the future, instead of buying the past. But this is also sort of their company M.O. and it's how they've operated for decades. Office was a rip off of VisiCalc and several other word processors. Windows was a reaction to the Mac. Azure is a response to AWS. Even HoloLens was a response to Magic Leap of all things. Halo was a Mac exclusive, until MS swept in and bought Bungie because they needed something for Xbox. Their entire product line reads as their version of something else that came first pretty much. It's just how they do things. I have a feeling a lot of the diehards on this forum don't even know this.

Which is why I personally don't think they are going to change the game industry with their moves. They can still have cool games. I am really hoping Starfield ends up as something great. However, as a company they are too busy trying to constantly respond instead of having a truly forward looking vision.
 

EdGalTBR

Member
Probably not. Latest Xbox gaming revenue reporting was 3.8 billion. No profit reported.


Zenimax doesn't make much. I think the last estimate was under 500 million a year. I think Activision's latest quarterly results were 1.88 billion in revenue.

Sony's latest quarterly revenue was 10 billion.


But more revenue doesn't matter if you're losing money and the competition is making a profit.

Sony sells more hardware, sells more games, and makes more money. As does Nintendo. That's what makes so many of the discussions on this board so ridiculous. There is a handful of people that just comment, and will argue vehemently, based on facts pulled purely out of their rear. It's really, really, easy to look up numbers and data and see what's actually happening. Microsoft clearly sees gaming as an important source of revenue in the future and they think they can grow it. But I don't think they have a vision, otherwise they would be inventing the future, instead of buying the past. But this is also sort of their company M.O. and it's how they've operated for decades. Office was a rip off of VisiCalc and several other word processors. Windows was a reaction to the Mac. Azure is a response to AWS. Even HoloLens was a response to Magic Leap of all things. Halo was a Mac exclusive, until MS swept in and bought Bungie because they needed something for Xbox. Their entire product line reads as their version of something else that came first pretty much. It's just how they do things. I have a feeling a lot of the diehards on this forum don't even know this.

Which is why I personally don't think they are going to change the game industry with their moves. They can still have cool games. I am really hoping Starfield ends up as something great. However, as a company they are too busy trying to constantly respond instead of having a truly forward looking vision.

Playstation revenue for last quarter was like ~5.86 billion.

 
Last edited:

Bragr

Member
But I don't think they have a vision, otherwise they would be inventing the future, instead of buying the past.
It's about streaming, Game Pass is built to transition into a pure streaming/TV app service. It's absolutely the future.
 

Bogeyman

Banned
Pretty sure Phil directly reported to Satya Nadela before this, but good for him. It's crazy how he was given a blank check for Minecraft, Zenimax and now Activision. I wish i was given that kind of money to buy stuff.

The guy got so much budget he could ultimately choose between either buying Activision Blizzard, or a brand new Geforce 3090ti.

I think he chose wisely.
 

lefty1117

Member
Probably not. Latest Xbox gaming revenue reporting was 3.8 billion. No profit reported.


Zenimax doesn't make much. I think the last estimate was under 500 million a year. I think Activision's latest quarterly results were 1.88 billion in revenue.

Sony's latest quarterly revenue was 10 billion.


But more revenue doesn't matter if you're losing money and the competition is making a profit.

Sony sells more hardware, sells more games, and makes more money. As does Nintendo. That's what makes so many of the discussions on this board so ridiculous. There is a handful of people that just comment, and will argue vehemently, based on facts pulled purely out of their rear. It's really, really, easy to look up numbers and data and see what's actually happening. Microsoft clearly sees gaming as an important source of revenue in the future and they think they can grow it. But I don't think they have a vision, otherwise they would be inventing the future, instead of buying the past. But this is also sort of their company M.O. and it's how they've operated for decades. Office was a rip off of VisiCalc and several other word processors. Windows was a reaction to the Mac. Azure is a response to AWS. Even HoloLens was a response to Magic Leap of all things. Halo was a Mac exclusive, until MS swept in and bought Bungie because they needed something for Xbox. Their entire product line reads as their version of something else that came first pretty much. It's just how they do things. I have a feeling a lot of the diehards on this forum don't even know this.

Which is why I personally don't think they are going to change the game industry with their moves. They can still have cool games. I am really hoping Starfield ends up as something great. However, as a company they are too busy trying to constantly respond instead of having a truly forward looking vision.
This is actually a very insightful post. I think an important overlooked factor in success is timing. Many of the things you pointed out as acquisitions or copies were things that didn't take off in their own time because of factors like lack of user readiness, lack of supporting or adjacent markets & products, availability of technology infrastructure etc. Apple didn't invent the smartphone, which existed at least 10 years earlier, but they innovated on it and caught the market right as it was primed. So I think what you are saying has a lot of merit, but innovation is just as important as invention.
 

Topher

Gold Member
As much I'm not a fan of some of his moves, I have to admit the guy indeed simply brough back xbox to life. It was no small task.

Phil Spencer is brilliant. You don't do what he has done without being brilliant. Especially after the Xbox One debacle.

Yeah, MS is a massive company, but they are not going to hand out billions to just anyone. People who say Spencer is just writing MS checks are not realistic.

Microsoft believes in Phil Spencer. As they should.
 
Last edited:

Oddvintagechap

Gold Member
Have to say I have no idea whats the difference between his prior role and this lol. Maybe bigger wallet for the incoming acquisitions?
He is no longer in charge of xbox. He’s in charge of multiple gaming divisions. They also now have a multi platform division, cell phone mobile divison… hell xbox might be their smallest division now. Candy Crush pulls huge numbers. I think it pulls in 4 billion a year. Still dont know how they got Activision so cheap.
 
Top Bottom