Seven Years In, Phil Spencer Has Succeeded Immensely In Helping Xbox Turn Things Around

I did not hear of any struggles with Zenimax. They have many successful franchises and an amazing legal team that brings in a lot of money. I was not talking about the acquisition of other developers. If they are able to scale up and take on bigger projects as a result of the acquisition, I have no issue with that.

It was known even before the acquisition that Zenimax/Bethesda were looking for a buyer.

Timestamp: 48:40

Heck Sony could've been one of the potential buyers or worse.... Amazon, Google or Tencent. Them shopping around for potential buyers means that they couldn't consistently keep up being a independent private publisher. Clearly Zenimax needed Microsoft. And as for new IPs what's stopping the Zenimax studios from making more new IPs now that they don't have to worry about the financial burdens?

Also 7 years of no games. 7 years in a row not nominated for GOTY at TGA.

You only play games that other people suggest?

Again, speculation on your part. We don't know the reasons for them looking at selling/partnering with others. There is no clear indication of financial struggles.

What is clear is that they were going to be sold.

No its not you're just trying to jump around this. Phil Spencer in plan English states they(Bethesda/Zenimax) was looking for potential buyers and that Microsoft was apart of the conversation. You don't sell yourself to a bigger company if you're not struggling financially. Like WTH? The same reason Discord is selling themselves to MS because they can't make profits(i.e discord nitro) anymore and need to be sold. But like @Pedro stated its clear that they wanted to be sold which kills the narrative that Microsoft came and strong armed their way in.

@blessedbyhorus: There are many reasons why private companies choose to sell... it does not mean they are struggling. Current shareholders/owners may want to sell because they no longer want to be involved (retiring, invest elsewhere, etc..). They may want to partner with a bigger company for strategic growth (Epic-Tencent). Every company has their reasons. You can't just speculate it being due to financial struggles. They sold for 7.5 billion. Clearly that is a company with a lot of value and future potential. They could make any kind of game they wanted. They are not relying on the MS funds like Ninja Theory.

Phil has pulled the Xbox brand out of the hole MS dug itself into. The push for UWP and Game Pass with first party content releasing on it day one was a major gambit, games going to PC meant no more console exclusive games, but it flipped the script, now what MS and Xbox push is a service and an ecosystem. They made up for underwhelming hardware of XB1 with demonstrations they can focus on power with the Xbox One X and Series X consoles. They took BC serious early, and though it did little to change their fortunes in the console market, they stuck with it, improved it, and I believe the knowledge gained here made the 9th gen transition easier. MS is already enhancing 8th gen games with 60fps and Auto HDR, and when that isn't the case the hardware still improves the performance with many games, which sadly isn't case for PS5, which still plays 8th gen games the same as a PS4 would, and whatever technical hiccups they have stick around. Publishers need to re-release their games on PS5 and consumers need to double dip. MS has demonstrated through 8th gen to 9th more commitment to users digital rights retention. In some ways I assume these aren't just technical challenges, they could also be legal considerations possibly, something MS planned proactively while Sony didn't. The cross platform functionality is nice and the auto save uploads to cloud service has made game data management a non-issue since last gen. On the game front he has been recruiting new developers with talent. Game Pass itself is looking to attract a lot of indie talent so that is nice.

At this point though since Sony had such a huge market lead 8th gen with PS4, it's natural people want to move on with PS5. It seems somewhat fortunate perhaps that with the pandemic, the shortage of semiconductors, and the supply bottlenecks keeping PS5 production low, seems in ways the Xbox Series S|X might be benefiting from it. Expansion of Game Pass for PC content will no doubt help the service grow an audience beyond just the console hardware.

It will be a test for all. Sony is under pressure too. Games cost too much to make so they're putting up the price and releasing more games on the PC to get their money back. You think they aren't feeling the fact that they're raising the price of their games to $70 and MS are giving them away day one?

They also mentioned their own version of Gamepass coming. This is the thing the fanboys obsessed with exclusives don't get, development cost too much, and companies want to maximise their profits. Something has to give. And despite the doom and gloom about Gamepass from Sony fans, it's actually doing very well with constant growth and the way MS is doing it, it has a lot of potential on a lot more devices to come.

I'll make a predictions now, this gen will shift PS to their biggest change in gaming more towards what MS is doing.

They've been slowly heading that way for a long time and slowly dipping their toes for while. PS1 and PS2 had ALL the games it was insane. PS3, there was competition and development costs went up, and most 3rd party games were on the PC or on both consoles.

Then with the PS4, by the end some games start coming to the PC and PSNow goes to PC too. Now with PS5, more games are coming to the PC and are cross gen. Between development costs and how things have been trending, I think it's inevitable that PS will share games with the PC just like MS and even have their own Gamepass service.

In the long term it's easier for MS to sustain a service like Gamepass, as more gamers support it with a cheap monthly subscription, than it is for Sony to continue what they are doing with hardware and exclusives. Every gen Sony has to start again, with the threat of development costs, and pressure from other services, while MS just has to continue and grow like Steam does.

PS5 isn't even a threat to MS anymore, because its popularity can only effect Xbox console sales at best, but will at worst only slow Gamepass growth, it can't stop it.

@Pedro: no.! I try to play as many big hit games as i can. Sad they're only on PS and Nintendo. Few on PC nowadays since most of em are multiplat now

So what is the relevance of pointing out other people's opinion if that is not the case?

@Pedro: is it your first time in this forum? I'm confused cause your profile says you been here since 2002.

Xbox hardware is selling out and Xbox 1st party went from 6 studios to 23 studios including all of Bethesda's IP.. what more do you want?..

I think it's safe to say Xbox is doing better than ever and the *not* competition are doing better than ever as well.. good news all around so i'm not sure what you're even complaining about at this point..

Why are you avoiding the question? Is this first time someone asked you a question on the forum?

I don't know how buying up studios makes you the good guy. As a gamer, say on xbox, you already have access to those games. You didnt gain anything other than bragging rights. Even then, they are still 3rd party games, not true exclusives. True exclusives or console sellers seem way more polished because they reflect on an entire brand, much bigger than just a gaming company. Buying out everyone's art just so you can sign your name next to their's or over their's because you can't make your own art or are too lazy to do it, isn't a good thing. I do think Phil's a good guy, but I don't think he's any more than just a face for xbox.

Your belief is that buying studios is bad and an indicator that the company cannot make their own or are too lazy? Is that a correct summary?

so i guess you were against Sony's acquisition of Insomniac?.. you think Spiderman should also be available on Xbox, PC, and Switch?..

i find it hilarious now that Xbox is buying up exclusivity, it's "anti-consumer" yet these same people don't seem to care that Sony bought up exclusivity for games like Final Fantasy XVI..

i personally would like to be able to buy one device and play all games on day one.. zero exclusivity.. but, again, these decisions aren't made in a vacuum.. Nintendo has exclusives, PlayStation has exclusives, and Xbox is about to have a ton of exclusives.. people can't screech daily for years about how "Xbox has no games" and then get mad when Xbox decides to acquire exclusive content..

Whatever the case maybe Bethesda wanted to be sold and Microsoft did not strong arm.

Well.. he started from ground zero so there was no where to go but in a positive direction 😄 Yet in those last 7 years, Xbox firsty party still lacking except for Forza Horizon.

@Antwan3K: Why would I be for Sony buying up studios? I've never played spiderman, but it looks like a typical 3rd party game that should be on all systems. So many Lems on here say they don't care about the company's finances, they just care about what they, as a consumer, can get. So again, I ask... What benefit do gamers get by buying studios? The only thing i can think of(which is actually pretty big), is that those games will now be a day one play on gamepass... So that's cool i guess. I'm also not against MS helping small companies that would otherwise bankrupt. If Bethesda was really about to go under, then I'm all for MS buying them. Just doesn't seem likely but i don't know the details on that. Lems on here talking about MS buying up Activision, Sega, etc etc... this is system wars i guess.

He 100% saved Xbox. Microsoft leadership was ready to pull the plug and now, they're in a position to be more successful than ever.

@Pedro: lol my comment on this topic is already the answer. If you posted this on games discussion or off topic, yeah your response would have made sense. Come on Peter, almost 48k posts and you still.... Lol nvm xD. Don't wanna argue with you cause you live in this forum. This is pretty much your territory xD

So, you prefer to avoid the question. Gotcha.

@joshrmeyer: seems exactly like a play for Game Pass.. A sub for hundreds of games versus $70 per game is great for all parties involved..

So, again, what's the problem?..

Meh, he hasn't greenlit a single game with a good waifu. So F from me,.

On a serious note, he's not the one who changed directions. He simply followed what Nadella wanted Xbox to become. MS as a whole has changed a lot under Nadella not just Xbox.

That is a lot of speculation being spun as fact.

That part is false. While it's hard to believe now but Epic was in a lot of trouble when Tencent invested in it. They desperately needed that money. Back then, Epic has pretty much no good games on the horizon and Gears it self was on a downward spiral and wasn't making them much money then UE4 was stil in the beta and it wasn't even clear of what would become of it since most publishers by that point in time has switched to inhouse engines and Cryengine was also gaining a lot of ground. That 330M was a life saver back then for Epic.

I never claimed it as a fact but stating my opinion of what likely happened. I forgot to put 'probably' in my original quote. After all strategy of 'presence' is Nadella's forte not Spencer's. If only Xbox has changed direction then people have a valid point but a whole lot more at MS took a similar direction.

You can't say you never claimed it as fact then follow up that sentence admitting that you did by forgetting to include probably .😉

The 'presence' has been part of their strategy since the birth of Xbox One (it was heavily marketed to developers). Xbox is doing what they were trying to do at the start of last gen except their initial strategy failed. All this is now, is a new strategy for the same outcome. Attaching gamers purchases to accounts and attaching services to these accounts.

Yes, Nadella allowed for a cultural change within Microsoft, which then allowed for Xbox to have more freedom to grow. But to argue that was mostly Nadella(who was about to shut down the Xbox division) behind Xbox's change is really disingenuous. When it was Phil who had to basically change Nadella's mind in selling off the brand. All Nadella did was just give Phil/Xbox an outline(which is for all of Xbox) and funds, the rest has been Phil's visions. Because Nadella could've have easily promoted another suit like Mattrick.

Where are you getting this information? Where is it documented that Microsoft was going to sell off Xbox and Phil Spencer changed his mind?

Was going to ask the same thing. Nadella never once hinted at that. I guess people are confusing him with another guy who was a candidate for CEO. I guess he was the head of Nokia or devices division at MS back then.

LOL. Epic was not struggling. They were making massive money off Unreal Engine. They would license it to developers for hundreds of thousands of dollars per title prior to opening it up to everyone with the new royalty structure. UE3 was hugely successful and very few developers were using in-house engines as it is too much work and investment. So many developers were excited for UE4. They made a lot of money off the Unreal and Gears games. Then they sold the Gears IP to Microsoft for a large sum. They had other successful games like Shadow Complex and Infinity Blade on mobile. They were working on Fortnite, Unreal Tournament reboot, and Paragon when PUBG and the battle royale genre took the gaming world over. They saw a massive opportunity and pulled everyone off of UT and Paragon to repurpose Fortnite for BR. All this while collecting royalties from Unreal Engine licensees.

They were right and Fortnite blew up. However, Tim Sweeney had much bigger plans and partnered with Tencent. Now they are still making a killing off Fortnite, Unreal Engine, and EGS royalties. Also, Cryengine was a joke compared to Unreal Engine when it came to industry adoption. It gained some traction when they also opened it up to everyone, but the number of UE licensees always dwarfed it. Crytek may have been struggling, but Epic was not.

LOL no! They wouldn't have been able to license it to hundreds of thousands back then because AAA publishers have already ditched UE3 for their in house engines and even now the bread and butter of UE4 is indie and small studios mostly before the Japanese devs sh*t the bed and had to settle for a friendly and competent third party engine. All the properties you listed apart from that were long past their prime and were actually losing Epic money, that's why they sold Gears to MS or else they would have stick to it.

The only reason they got this big because they got lucky with Fortnite BR which was conceived way later after PUBG took off and they managed to even do it with the money they had from Tencent. if Tencent hadn't invested back then Epic will be scraping and would pretty much be in the same spot Crytek is now.

And you have a short memory, when UE4 was starting out Cryengine had more licenses than UE4. UE4 came way later and Epic were still relying on UE3. No matter what Sweeney likes to portray or says, back then Epic didn't have any big plans or any plan apart from the one to stay afloat. Back then he has famously kissing Gabe's a$$ and calling UWP. If Epic had any grand plans or confidence they wouldn't have given away 40% for mere 330M.

@pc_rocks: You are living in a fantasy world. Not many developers use in house engines these days. Cryengine has never been bigger than Unreal Engine. Some developers finished projects in UE3 before switching over to UE4, but they were still using UE and not Cryengine. Unreal Engine usage destroys Cryengine. It's not even close....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CryEngine_games

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games

He didn't say that Cryengine was bigger than Unreal Engine but "...when UE4 was starting out Cryengine had more licenses than UE4."

Just saying.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/11/spencer-microsoft-almost-abandoned-xbox-brand-after-the-xbox-one-launch/

I may have used strong words with "selling off" but its well known that Microsoft was thinking about ditching Xbox and Phil was the one who convinced them not to. Phil also convincing them to but Mojang was also a strategic move by Phil.

The actually interview indicates that Xbox was in trouble and they were working on a course of action. It was more of what do we do with this mess rather than sell off or closed the division. Phil didn't change Sataya's mind because there wasn't a move to shut it down or sell. It was

The thing I need, if I'm going to step into the role to head this group, is I need to bring it back together. I can't have my hardware team over there and the platform team over there, and first-party over there. I need to bring it back as a cohesive team." And he agreed to that. So I ended up working in the Windows division, but we brought all those pieces back together.

Which makes no sense anyway. At no point did Cryengine have more licenses. If developers had not migrated to UE4, then they were still using UE3. There are different versions of Cryengine as well. So, I don't understand what point he is trying to get across. Unreal Engine always had more licenses than Cryengine.

The statement is that Cryengine had more licenses than UE4. I don't know the truth of that claim but it is not the same as claiming Cryengine had more licenses than Unreal Engine. When UE4 was released it was shit for sometime before it became a viable options like its predecessor.

Not my problem that you can't read or understand what you're arguing. Spamming irrelevant links doesn't change the reality.

Whatever man. I am done wasting time with you. Believe what you want. I don't really give a fuk at this point.

Typical hermits fighting over game engines, could there be a more pathetic tech fanbase???

tbh, i and my fellow cows we're much more pathetic.

I can't argue against that. 😊

A Phil Spencer appreciation thread lol

You can look at it that way or you see it for what it is, a thread about a GAMESPOT article. 🙄

Couldn't possibly be any worse than Don Mattrick. Had nowhere to go but up. I still think Microsoft should spend more money to acquire more stuff to put Sony and Nintendo in a more uncomfortable position. The more uncomfortable they are, the better all 3 will be.

Succeeded in helping making gaming a whole lot shittier indeed he has.