Not really any surprise. Microsoft never went into gaming to "better" the game industry, they just saw an untapped market they could try to take over like all the other monopolys they established over the years.
Their buisness model never was about funding the creation of great, new IPs, it was always about bribing existing developpers into timed exclusivity deals and other short term methods of getting sales without putting the effort into creating something from the ground up. When they do snatch a developper that's capable of producing well selling IPs, they run them to the ground and let the flame extinguish by making them milk sequels after sequels until both devs and fanbase are sick of the IP... Or cancel any product that's "too risky".
It takes guts and passion to fund, help, nurture a relationship with a developper for years, allowing them to retain creative control over their products and to try new IPs that might not always end up being system sellers , but that have the potential to develop into something else with time. Heck, sometimes that "failed" investment pays off in the long run, as the dev team lears alot from it and creates something awe-insiring afterwards. If there was no ICO, would there have been a Shadow of the Colossus and a The Last Guardian ? With no Demon's Souls, would there have been Dark Souls and Bloodborne ? With no Indigo Prophecy, would there have been Heavy Rain, Beyond and such.
So to me , killing Scalebound is basically sending the message , loud and clear that MS doesn't care about new IPs unless they aren't guaranteed system sellers... Which is kinda sad for a platform sorely lacking in exclusives and living on old franchises on life support (Halo, Gears, Forza). But alas, you woudn't want to lose a couple millions funding Scalebound and broadening your exclusive portfolio. I do think a guy like Spencer cares, but he's clearly just a PR figurehead for a bunch of corporate execs that only care about profit margins and quartely losses for the monopoly that is MS.
