• 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.

Changes in Xbox Leadership Would Not Change Anything

ProtoByte

Member
If it was even a possibility. Who would want to salvage this or be allowed to do it?

As much as the likes of Spencer and Booty deserve flak for their years long incompetency, the truth is that if it wasn't them playing kick the can down the road, it would be someone else doing the same thing or no one at all.

Don't forget, they have a boss too. Nadella has kept that leadership infrastructure in place because Spencer continuously made promises to somehow shape the games market into something of a scale and nature that folds into the Windows frame of business. Desperation lead them too close to the sun, buying too much, too quickly - when they've actively damaged the little that they owned prior - and now they've gone from being something Microsoft could do without to something Microsoft needs to recoup their investments on. Yeah yeah, "trillion dollar corporation" (in non-liquid valuation only, but whatever). They didn't get there by being loose with their resources and time.

It's very different at each of the major publishers, but you can extend this logic to almost all executive decision making.

Not to say that there shouldn't be any sympathy on behalf of a studio that gets shut down like Tango, but iirc, Shinji Makami left because he thought Tango would be safe with Microsoft? I could've told him that they were not safe simply because Microsoft had money - money that Tango in particular wasn't making for Bethesda in the first place, and definitely nothing that would've impressed Microsoft; that the only thing that could've hoped to protect them is their pedigree by virtue of having his name attached to it.

Any of these other studios or studio heads feeling the pressure after having sold themselves to likes of Microsoft or Embracer or Sony (looking at you Bungie) or any given publishers should not be surprised, imo. They themselves should understand the industry and their buyer well enough to forecast what their standing is going to be. Embracer was never going to work out, because trying to become a major publisher by swallowing up dozens of mid rate eurojank sweatshops would've been a laughable strategy in the 2000s, let alone now.
 
If it was even a possibility. Who would want to salvage this or be allowed to do it?...
the smartest people in the room are no longer really all that smart (& i'm not just talking about ms), & haven't been for a while now. not sure how things've devolved to this point, but lack of repercussions combined with fear of rocking the boat has left us with a class of leadership lost within its own wet dreams...
 

reinking

Gold Member
IMO

For a really long time, Xbox has been focused on "beating Sony" to be market leader and not being the best Xbox. Their messaging has been all over the place and they have lost their identity as a brand. I also believe with the right leadership there could have been a bigger focus on quality games and holding studios accountable. It seems like there is little accountability for a studio until it is too late. It might be too late now (we will see), but they could definitely be in a better position than they are now with better leadership.
 

ProtoByte

Member
the smartest people in the room are no longer really all that smart (& i'm not just talking about ms), & haven't been for a while now. not sure how things've devolved to this point, but lack of repercussions combined with fear of rocking the boat has left us with a class of leadership lost within its own wet dreams...
I get what you mean with this, but if it's in particular reference to the recent turbulence in the game industry (which is a seperate discussion), I don't think the current class of leadership is any dumber than before. The game industry has always been volatile, and the reasons for said volatility were way crazier.

I don't think Bobby Kotick was stupid, and I don't think Andrew Wilson is either. Not any dumber than the people who give Activision and EA money, at least. Lol
 

ProtoByte

Member
They were doing fine with the Xbox 360 so that’s clearly not true.
They weren't really. They were still running red back then, and their success had more to do with beating the competition to the punch and Sony initially fucking up with the PS3, if it wasn't for them throwing around money like they are today, buying publishers notwithstanding.

They were just doing all that in smaller form to now.
 

Cyberpunkd

Member
The problem is the CFO Amy and MS leadership. All they care is profit and not the brand.

A company who cares about it's brand, would have fired these leadership.
Spencer is failing on the profit front as well, don't know what to tell you. Last Q Xbox software revenue is -1% if you take out ABK acquisition.
 
Last edited:

SHA

Member
of course is not.

and we know MS dosen't get this midum/industy


I'm 90% sure they will fuck up CoD.
I don't understand, the logic behind the anual release of Cod is similar to iPhones, what's the difference? , they're both stupidly successful, what kind of leadership that will f this up?
 
I get what you mean with this, but if it's in particular reference to the recent turbulence in the game industry (which is a seperate discussion), I don't think the current class of leadership is any dumber than before. The game industry has always been volatile, and the reasons for said volatility were way crazier.

I don't think Bobby Kotick was stupid, and I don't think Andrew Wilson is either. Not any dumber than the people who give Activision and EA money, at least. Lol
i agree. but, according to Wikipedia, kotick became ceo of activision in '91, & andrew wilson, involved in dot.com stuff in the late '90s, & thereafter with ea, becoming ceo in 2013. bottom line: these 2've been involved in gaming for a while, in leadership positions...

& not smartest =/= 'stupid'. i feel much of today's younger leadership class simply can't distinguish between what works just fine in the context of a powerpoint on a flat screen with what works in actual reality. it's just the way they've been raised...
 

feynoob

Member
Spencer is failing on the profit front as well, don't know what to tell you. Last Q Xbox software revenue is -1% if you take out ABK acquisition.
The issue is this acquisition shouldn't have happened at all, if she didn't insist on this profit nonsense.

You can't expect an immediate profit when you are trying to repair your platform.
 

ProtoByte

Member
The issue is this acquisition shouldn't have happened at all, if she didn't insist on this profit nonsense.

You can't expect an immediate profit when you are trying to repair your platform.
They'd been trying to repair for 8 years or something.

They're going 3rd party regardless. Whoever is going to take over, is going to work towards that.
They've got an uphill battle there too. The whole reason Microsoft is in this position is because they do not know how or have incentive to build a reliable games pipeline. If a third party publisher doesn't even have that, they have nothing.
 

feynoob

Member
They'd been trying to repair for 8 years or something.
Bethesda and those small studios were enough. Just needed enough funding.

Instead, ABK happened. Gutted marketing department and now killed their talent studio and other studios.

They could have put some of their IPs to those studios.

The stink that happened this gen is different level.
 

Denorion

Neo Member
Yes, the US$ 80 billion they thrown around ensures that no matter what they will have to go to the third party route in hopes to recoup that

But Spencer and Co. Have repeatedly shown they are incompetent in managing games production, especially now that the organization is ginormous

So yeah, they might need a new leadership that can assure quality and is able to manage so many studil
 

ProtoByte

Member
I don't understand, the logic behind the anual release of Cod is similar to iPhones, what's the difference? , they're both stupidly successful, what kind of leadership that will f this up?
COD sucks, but the pipeline to get out a game every year is robust.

I think it's possible, but it would be a historic achievement if Microsoft is the reason COD finally falters.
 
I think it's possible, but it would be a historic achievement if Microsoft is the reason COD finally falters.
this is what can happen:

We know CoD is a resource-hungry operation. not really that smooth, It's an engine working in overdrive mode.

executives are very power/money-driven individuals. ABK executives have a path to make more money/gain more power....that's Xbox. (taking over Phil, Sarah, Booty´s position). From the development side , seniors and leadership are the ones in a position to leave the company with a lot of money.

The internal politics/turmoil/Power vacuums/Culture Clash are going to be very nasty. this adds distractors and uncertainty to devs in the trenches. lowering productivity/efficiency....this alone can make CoD to drop in quality (more?) and even worse, get a delay or even miss a year entirely.

another factor that MS added to the equation is the promise of putting CoD in another platform (Switch/2)...yeah, that is going to add another layer of complexity in an already fragile pipeline.

Now. Activision´s management is the one in power, they are the ones who know how this machine works. the drama about putting CoD on game pass is not only financial but political. MS can really piss off Devs and executives (bonuses related).

if there is a breakdown in management, who is going to take care of CoD production, Xbox management, MS management a new different team? yep...this will be catastrophic.

we also know the stupid MS policy of contract work. (6-18 months contract)...and as I said many times: Xbox´s Track Record is shit:

Halo Infinite/343i: I don't even have to say anything.
Turn 10: The last entry was a big miss same issues (contract policy)
The coalition: Gears IP has lost its luster > canceled project > Gears 6 is taking longer to release.
and the elusive 5 trouble development. (Project Dark, Fable, Contraband, Everwild, State of Decay)









.
 

JimmyRustler

Gold Member
So all the devision leader are nothing but puppets for the CEO? Come on…. If you remember, Xbox changed actually quite a bit after Moore left. Was that also just the CEO in the background or what?

Exchanging the leadership would not make Xbox change their course overnight but down the line…. For surw.
 

Loomy

Thinks Microaggressions are Real
I disagree with your premise. A change in leadership would bring about a change of strategy/vision. They would put different people in positions that will help them deliver on that vision - whatever it is.
 

James Sawyer Ford

Gold Member
The problem is the CFO Amy and MS leadership. All they care is profit and not the brand.

A company who cares about it's brand, would have fired these leadership.

No

Phil has had over 10 years and 100 billion
to play around with

MS execs are sick and tired of the failure and aren’t giving Xbox leadership and more lifelines
 
No

Phil has had over 10 years and 100 billion
to play around with

MS execs are sick and tired of the failure and aren’t giving Xbox leadership and more lifelines
We have gone from Phil being the promised messiah who would undo all the wrongs of the false prophet, Mattrick to Phil could not do anything and nobody else could either. What people forget is that Phil has always been a slimeball. He was useless as head of Xbox studios, useless as head of Xbox and now useless as head of MS gaming. How this incompetent idiot still has a job, particularly in this economy where hard working rank and file employees lose jobs due to no fault of theirs is mind boggling.
 

midnightAI

Member
No

Phil has had over 10 years and 100 billion
to play around with

MS execs are sick and tired of the failure and aren’t giving Xbox leadership and more lifelines
That certainly seems to be the case, it wouldn't suprise me if the call to put first party games on other platforms has come from above Phil's head and that Phil certainly doesn't want to do that. Either way, he's been told to cut costs and improve profits.
 

feynoob

Member
No

Phil has had over 10 years and 100 billion
to play around with

MS execs are sick and tired of the failure and aren’t giving Xbox leadership and more lifelines
Try and Google what cfo job is.

Most of the time, it's these fkers that destroy companies due to the financial targets and their stupid decisions.
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
Someone tweeted last week about how the A-B acquisition meant that a lot of people within the MS organization were critically looking at the Xbox division in a way they never had before. Seems right to me. I never worked at MS, I know nothing of their culture, but Xbox is now at a different place in the org than they were before. Maybe it was easier for Xbox to let a studio like Tango make a quirky game like Hi-Fi Rush but now they will be getting way more scrutiny from the business.
 

LordCBH

Member
Change in leadership likely wouldn’t change things sure. But it baffles me that Microsoft is quick to fire like 2500 people, but absolutely refuse to axe the people who’s decisions directly got them into the poor spot they are with Xbox.
 
It’s obvious the PR machine will be out in force during Hellblade 2 and the June showcase to defend them.

They only have to show a brief teaser of Gears 6 and the usual routine of “Phil haters be quiet” will be front and centre.

Frankly I’m sick of it, it’s the same routine we have again and again, one or two steps forward and inevitably the four or five steps back happens not long after.

There is always some issue or compromise with them and it’s fucking boring and far outstayed it’s welcome. A game is too short, it’s missing features, it’s designed for a service, we are learning, we hear you, we appreciate the feedback. BORING.

The only thing these people ever truly accomplished was to make their competitive hardware look a better purchase.
 

ProtoByte

Member
Change in leadership likely wouldn’t change things sure. But it baffles me that Microsoft is quick to fire like 2500 people, but absolutely refuse to axe the people who’s decisions directly got them into the poor spot they are with Xbox.
To be honest some of that can be blamed on the redundancies that are created when buying 2 other publishers, and some of it can be blamed on the economy in general. Lucky for Phil and co, there's yet another excuse.

But again, the day they get rid of Spencer is the day they shut this shit down entirely.
 

Sethbacca

Member
the smartest people in the room are no longer really all that smart (& i'm not just talking about ms), & haven't been for a while now. not sure how things've devolved to this point, but lack of repercussions combined with fear of rocking the boat has left us with a class of leadership lost within its own wet dreams...
This is basically modern leadership culture in a nutshell though. It's almost impossible for a leader of any company to actually fail downward anymore. Like when was the last time a shit CEO had actual consequences? Failing upward is the only option anymore, and they get let go with a 200 million dollar severance package and are allowed to move on to ruin other companies.
 

Cyborg

Member
At this point, it doesn't even matter. It will take them years to recover and execute the new strategy.
 

ProtoByte

Member
As much as a big haul the ABK acquisition was, it seems to be there downfall.
Pride cometh before.

Also worth mentioning that this is why I was fine with the acquisition going through. Deals this big and inappropriate destroy themselves.
 
They were doing fine with the Xbox 360 so that’s clearly not true.
Not really, I think many of us forget what happened back then.
At first they were doing great software wise but they were in the red most of the 360 lifetime. The last few years of 360 after Peter Moore and crew left, Don Mattrick took his place and it was Kinnect focused, you had what. Dance central , star wars dance game and just forza, gears, halo, repeat for years.

360 was good software wise during its inception. Xbox og was better (imo).
Hardware wise it sucked in the start and got better in the end.
Ps3 was able to surpase them due to the software issues that continued into the xbox 1.
 
Last edited:

Gaiff

SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
They weren't really. They were still running red back then, and their success had more to do with beating the competition to the punch and Sony initially fucking up with the PS3, if it wasn't for them throwing around money like they are today, buying publishers notwithstanding.

They were just doing all that in smaller form to now.
Their foothold at the time was much stronger than it is now. Sony also lost a lot of money initially with the PS3 and were in the red for a good chunk of its lifetime. What mattered more for Microsoft at the time was the strength of their brand and gaining marketshare. That's why they threw so much money at it and they did a very good job capturing a significant chunk of the market.

With the X1 and Series X, all that worked they spent billions of dollars on vanished and they're back to square one. Profits aren't the only thing driving a brand and Microsoft's objective with the 360 wasn't to make a shitton of money, it was to strengthen and established their console business which was a success. Then they incorrectly saw that traditional gaming was going the way of the dodo and fucked up with one bad decision after the other.
Not really, I think many of us forget what happened back then.
At first they were doing great software wise but they were in the red most of the 360 lifetime. The last few years of 360 after Peter Moore and crew left, Don Mattrick took his place and it was Kinnect focused, you had what. Dance central , star wars dance game and just forza, gears, halo, repeat for years.

360 was good software wise during its inception. Xbox og was better (imo).
Hardware wise it sucked in the start and got better in the end.
Ps3 was able to surpase them due to the software issues that continued into the xbox 1.
No, I perfectly remember what happened and it's when they dropped what they were doing to go chase Nintendo's customers and TV that spelled doom for them. They were doing great up until around 2011-2012 which is when the major push for Kinect happen. It initially caught on well but was a fad and nobody cared about it by the time the Xbox One launched. They should have maintained the course they had with the Xbox 360.
 
They were doing fine with the Xbox 360 so that’s clearly not true.
They were doing fine when Sony was missing the mark with the PS3 and releasing a 200$ more expensive box 1 year later, just like Series S was doing fine when Sony couldn't produce PS5 units.

Both consoles go for the same core audience and it's just clear when given the chance people will go for Sony's console and not Microsoft's.

The fact PS3 managed to surpass 360 sales when you think about it is nothing short of incredible. Just like no one expected Series sales to tumble like this as PS5 came back to the market.

Xbox as a brand just isn't as strong as Playstation, no matter what Microsoft does. To coordinate studios, teams within studios, your hardware team, hiring, marketing deals, etc...to the point you can have a game releasing per month like Sony is currently doing is no easy feat.

The truth is, and this is a tough pill to swallow on GAF but MS failed at many of their businesses. Xbox in the end is just that. They even managed to ruin Skype after acquiring them, lmao. The ones they have that they excel at are simply too monumental to ever truly fail like Windows, Office, etc...

Even on their strongest markets (UK and USA), they only managed to win a SINGLE gen in 4. (again, while competing with a 200$ more expensive box that released one year later)
 
Last edited:

Gaiff

SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
They were doing fine when Sony was missing the mark with the PS3 and releasing a 200$ more expensive box 1 year later, just like Series S was doing fine when Sony couldn't produce PS5 units.
Series S didn't have better games than the PS5 though. Xbox 360 initially had a stronger library than the PS3.
Both consoles go for the same core audience and it's just clear when given the chance people will go for Sony's console and not Microsoft's.
When Xbox stopped producing compelling titles in 2011 and onwards, of course. The PS3's last few years saw some its most celebrated games. It was the opposite for the Xbox where it came to a grinding halt.
The fact PS3 managed to surpass 360 sales when you think about it is nothing short of incredible. Just like no one expected Series sales to tumble like this as PS5 came back to the market.
I mean, it really isn't. The PS3 was coming off the smashing success that was the PS2 so they had a huge fanbase already. They fumbled the bag and Xbox capitalized. Let's not rewrite history and pretend that the Xbox 360 didn't have competitive titles and a great ecosystem because they did. These are some of the big reasons they managed to steal a portion of Sony's customers.

Additionally, the Xbox One was also doing a decent job keeping up with the PS4 initially despite the absolute fiasco that was E3 2015. This was coming off the back of the 360's success that they then squandered.

The Xbox 360 was a successful console given its objective. It succeeded at strengthening the Xbox brand and gaining market share. The idiots suits at Microsoft figured the real money was in motion gaming and TV, and crashed and burned as a result.
 
Top Bottom