Much of my "witch hunting" is jest, don't take it so literally. My name is Salty for a reason. My avatar is an angry hippo for a reason. I get more enjoyment out of discussing things in this passionate, overblown way. But I also guess it's my way of responding to people who have been white knighting Phil Spencer since he took over, blaming everything on Mattrick and others. Something I've always disagreed with and have been speaking against for years, while being mocked in the process. I'm not gonna lie, I find some vindication in being maybe right up until this point, but this E3 will paint a more definitive picture. I honestly hope I'm completely, 100% wrong. But don't count on it.
Quick thing about Kinect that I want to get out of the way. It was successful, but it was pure cancer to their following project. Motion was a fad and is, with very few exceptions, completely dead and buried today. The Kinect's success was not worth the ruin of their following console.
About Fries, what does it matter what he does today? I'm just comparing different mentalities. What does even the market matter? Look at Sony. They compete in the exact same market and have been building their brand around diversity during the entire lifespan of the Xbox brand. That's what they did when they were at the top with PS1 and 2 and also what they did when they were struggling with the PS3. Seems to be working pretty well for them today. So don't give me this market excuse. It has changed, but if your brand is strong and people trust you to deliver a bunch of traditional games, they will be there for you and you won't be too affected. If you rely on a cardboard house of 3 declining franchises with little investment outside of that, though... of course you will have some worrying to do.
What's really funny about your market point is that it's Microsoft who has been "adaptating to new market tendencies" for YEARS now. And how has that been working out? First Kinect which killed XB1's launch and message, then the start of an obsession with online multiplayer that still stands today, then a string of things like HEY ASYNCHRONOUS MULTIPLAYER IS A THING NOW WE GOTTA HAVE THAT, so they shove it on the new Fable. Then OH WOW F2P IS ALSO HUGE, so they decide to make that game F2P as well. Then they look at their newly built studio and go SHANGHEIST? CANCEL IT, NEW IP DOESN'T SELL, LET'S BUY THE GEARS IP AND PUT THEM ON THAT INSTEAD AND TURN GEARS INTO A SUCCESSFUL E-SPORTZZZZZZZZZ. Then they look at Scalebound and go HEY MONSTER HUNTER IS HUGE RIGHT LET'S INTERFERE AND FORCE A SHODDY CO-OP DOWN PEOPLE'S THROATS, CALL KAMIYA RIGHT NOW.
I could keep going forever. Rare's new game is heavily influenced by Destiny. Phantom Dust was brought back to life because of its online component, e-sport and microtransaction potential. Crackdown is also having an online focus, to the point that they originally intended to release only the multiplayer first. State of Decay 2 was announced because zombie/survival games are still popular, especially with streamers. Same reason Dead Rising 3 was greenlit, and DR4 was moneyhatted. And speaking of streamers, Microsoft has acquired its own streaming platform to compete with Twitch. They are always reacting, always late to the party, and always failing. But sure, if Ed Fries was overwhelming you with traditional and diverse games today, HE would be the one running the brand into the ground. Okay.
They did do a few great stuff outside of that spectrum. Sunset is awesome, Quantum Break deserves praise for at least trying to do something new in terms of narrative. There has been some good small-budget games like KI and Ori. But these are far more the exception rather than the rule.
I agree about Kinect, you don't need to tell me that. Motion I still think has a space in VR. Kinect's success shouldn't have defined their next project at all, but nor should it have ever existed because of it. It was a smart idea, it's just people at Xbox were stupid enough to force it rather than make it optional. Optional Kinect would not have been a issue.
My point about Ed Fries position was his mentality only found a position in OUYA in the later generations, because it only really works in that android and android based gaming market today. Were triple AAA budgets are lower, create a vast diverse portfolio within a budget is easily achievable. A company were the investment isn't so large per project that a committee is needed to vote on each, only the budget. Compare Sony's portfolio of PS3 exclusives to the PS4, look at the first couple of years of the ps4, look at the numbers of studio's and partnerships around during the PS3 and compare it to now and see it has shrunk because of the market. Sony closing all internal indie development and focusing on a few very large triple AAA games, that have a very long development cycle and budgets due to the market.
The trinity reason for why they don't focus on first party has never worked for me, by the way Forza isn't in decline. Reason it doesn't work is, when you look at the fact they tried to set up new franchises for this generation Sunset, Ryse, Recore, scalebound, Ori and KI with sea of thieves to come. Sunset was a sale failure, as much as people want to say they should have stuck with it, any publisher won't touch a tainted project (project with no marketability, base community or growth.) People will obviously bring up Assassains creed and uncharted 1, two examples set early in the generation with a low install base. Two franchises that were entering a market with a lower amount of people to sell to which would have been account for, an the biggest difference when development costs would have been far far lower.
Ryse was a success at launch in fact MS wanted to buy the IP to continue the franchise. It seems like Armature are still working with MS and Phil has often defended's and sees a lot of promise in it, I think a sequel is very much in the works. Why is that different to Sunset, well far lower budget development time and reviews across the board talked about how much promise it had. The majority of the problems were technical, they can be fixed. Scalebound cancelled, they can't see into the future, every project's a bet and Scalebound should have been a very save one at that. Ori and KI are following the same path as SOD, humble origins only to prove itself and become at AAA sequel. Which I think we will see both of those at E3 this year in the form of bigger sequels. Sea of Thieves has a lot of promise.
Actively right now Microsoft is not relying on the trinity this fall, and has hopes of forming a new trinity in SOD2 to confirm a triple a sequel and it's future as a franchise, Crackdown a IP that can be a massive IP for Microsoft (I think it will overtake Gears) and sea of thieves that they are giving a lot of time and money to allow it to be a franchise. Does Sea of Thieves come out this year I think no but that's another question. But they are getting having Gears/Forza/Halo thrown at them at a time when they are actively pushing back against that stigma.
A obsession with online multiplayer? your trying to lump that in as a adapting to new market strategies, late to the party and always failing. A market Xbox created, a strategy that has been very successful and is the main core image of Xbox and their biggest strength. You add in asynchronous compute to add length to your argument but it makes no point, considering it is not a negative in fact it's only additive. Your denying F2P is a viable market and strategy? don't get me wrong I don't like it being in a Fable game but ironically a head Sony exec being the one to push the focus for that market across all of EMEA MS studios. They look at Black Tusk and see no new franchise, a studio struggling and IP that is part of it's core platform that is on the brink of being third party. They buy the IP ask Black Tusk if they want the oppurtunity to work on a massive IP and to have Rod Fergusson come in and head the studio, two things that answer their problems and avoid them being closed as a failure. Now the coalition is a really accomplished studio under Rod, has the talent to become more as a studio are you saying that was a bad decision? also how is esports a negative? it's not it's additive and a useless part of your argument.
In that Gears point you state "New IP doesn't sell" mimicking what you think MS is saying, yet everything they have done and are doing points against that. The new IP they launched this generation, Ryse, Sunset, Quantum break, Titanfall and Scalebound were not cheap, and in fact they are working probably on their most expensive title right now which they have a lot of believe in which is a new IP. Scalebound had CO-OP since it's very first unveiling and Kamiya has talked about as part of his vision and the design decisions behind it, if your seriously trying to say monster hunter had an affect on Scalebound a series who's success is in Japan. Scalebound was Platinum trying to push back against every label put on it, a new open world RPG with CO-OP far more ambitious and distinct than anything Platinum had made before. You paint CO-OP in a negative light but yet again it's only additive.
While I think everyone coming down on you like a ton of bricks for the Destiny comment is over the top, Sea of thieves was in development before Sea of Thieves released. The idea of Sea of Thieves had been around for a while, destiny is inspired by MMO'S and Sea of thieves is far closer to a living player populated world like WOW than destiny. Especially when you consider that Destiny's key premise is a looter shooter and Sea of Thieves isn't. I absolutely agree that they have looked at Destiny after launch to see what can go wrong in that content structure on console, that is not unique to destiny but MMO's. But they would be stupid not to. Phantom Dust was brought back to life because there was a fanbase, it was a IP with a ton of potential that is unique something that's very rare. Phantom Dusts love doesn't come from it's campaign but it's multiplayer, and yet again esports is additive.
Micro-transaction are constant now due to triple AAA budgets so I don't see that as a reason but rather a necessity to be market viable for any number of reason's. I think Matt Piscella and his collegue did a very good NPD article on it.
Crackdowns online component is because Dave Jones came back on the project and the way he wanted to push the project forward was by using cloud which goes hand in hand with multiplayer, unless you want a online only game to piss people off. The multiplayer was set to come out before hand because people in Xbox probably wanted it out early to prove the cloud and therefore sell console's. Luckily the first party teams have pushed back and have it as a single core release which will help the product in the long term. State of Decay 2 was announced because State of Decay 1 was very successful, reviewed very well and had potential to become the next AAA franchise for Microsoft. In the Zombie survival concept the clear seller is not the zombies but the survival aspect, but the survival aspect that is popular with streamers has evolved past Zombies and is competitive multiplayer not single player. So obviously not because of streamers.
Dead Rising 3 was green lit because it was a successful franchise that was synonyms with Xbox and they had the opportunity to steal it back again as a exclusive with Dead rising 4 very likely being a part of that contract. Do you really think Microsoft money hatted DR4 at the start of development from Capcom, a company that was struggling to fund it's own projects? it feels like a lot of this post is buzzwords with no real reason. Microsoft acquired a streaming platform because one of it's new objectives under Phil is to build the platform the services and the OS and beam lines up with that. They aren't stupid enough to buy beam as a reason to compete with twitch, but a way add value and community to their platform with community being a key focus for them they have talked about.
E3 2016 was the first year since the Xbox one launched were they stopped reacting and made their own path, in the 360 generation everyone was reacting to them so I don't know were you got that from. Your three string of "always reacting, always late to the party and always failing" is the highest level of hyperbole you have put in a post. He wouldn't be overwhelming me with games he would constrained by the market, he also wouldn't have ever be working in the market today has his management style doesn't work on any platform but mobile in todays market. I never said he would run the company into the ground just that he wouldn't fit, he would very likely be in the same position Phil is in today if he was tasked with clearing up Xbox ones mess. What I find weird is that you agree with Ed on every point but his opinion on Phil, that's what I call selective reading.
I'm well aware of your persona, it's hard to tell when a persona is being hyper negative for that persona. It's always great to have passion in your discussion or else what's the point in making it. I think trying to pin anything on Phil when he hasn't even gotten into a full sprint to be able to fall flat on his face, if he ever does hopefully, is far to soon. With Mattrick people can see him jog, run and fall flat on his face while getting back up only to fall on his face again. There is a reason to put blame on Mattrick, theres evidence. I don't know what my avatar says about me, probably Forgotten by Nintendo.
(Saying Quantum break was different is probably the nicest thing that can be said of it unfortunately.)