• 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.

Why XBOX lost the war - according to Laura Fryer

Kokoloko85

Member
Because they never were gonna win it.

360 came out a year before PS3, much cheaper, better 3rd party games, better online structure, had a bunch of PS central titles for the first time like Tekken, DMC, FF13. Also titles like Halo 3 and Gears were huge.

After those few years Xbox has never been the same And never will, alot of it was also PS fumbling and making huge mistakes.

Didnt help that during that time, media like Forbes, Bloomberg, Eurogamer had FUD article about PS dying every month...
 
Last edited:

Moses85

Member
Why they lost?

They promise things they dont hold
They own brands they dont use

Homemade Problems

My XSX is covered in dust. I have to clean it on the Weekend. Havent it turned on since I played GE Remake on it.

What a waste of Money.

Animated GIF
 
Because they never were gonna win it.

360 came out a year before PS3, much cheaper, better 3rd party games, better online structure, had a bunch of PS central titles for the first time like Tekken, DMC, FF13. Also titles like Halo 3 and Gears were huge.

After those few years Xbox has never been the same And never will, alot of it was also PS fumbling and making huge mistakes.

Didnt help that during that time, media like Forbes, Bloomberg, Eurogamer had FUD article about PS dying every month...
It feels like it's because both Sony and Microsoft got complacent at different times affording ground to the other. But man, that fight between them when 360 came out was awesome. We were getting awesome games when they were competing with each other.
 

Eotheod

Member
I'd argue Phil Spencer has done even more damage to the xbox brand since the xbox one release tbh
There is more going on than just Phil as the head. Certainly the head honcho does have pull, but a company as big as Microsoft and their game studio doesn't cow toe by one man only. Many cogs in the wheel.

It's why when people complain about Jim Ryan decisions or talking points, he isn't the only key stakeholder in the moving wheel. It really comes down to your studios, how you manage and create plans of action but also team morale/vision. As a project manager, I'm responsible for the projects but there is also responsibility in the spider web of people underneath. If one of them doesn't pull their worth, it can affect the overall scope of works and outcome.
 

Mephisto40

Member
There is more going on than just Phil as the head. Certainly the head honcho does have pull, but a company as big as Microsoft and their game studio doesn't cow toe by one man only. Many cogs in the wheel.

It's why when people complain about Jim Ryan decisions or talking points, he isn't the only key stakeholder in the moving wheel. It really comes down to your studios, how you manage and create plans of action but also team morale/vision. As a project manager, I'm responsible for the projects but there is also responsibility in the spider web of people underneath. If one of them doesn't pull their worth, it can affect the overall scope of works and outcome.
The video the OP posted makes him out to be some sort of Jesus figure at the end
 

Kokoloko85

Member
It feels like it's because both Sony and Microsoft got complacent at different times affording ground to the other. But man, that fight between them when 360 came out was awesome. We were getting awesome games when they were competing with each other.
Tons of great games that gen. Uncharted 1-3, Lost odessey, Halo 3, Gears 1-3, TLOU, Demons Souls, MGS4, KillZone 2-3, Halo ODST+Reach. Ni No Kuni, RDR, GTA 4.
 
Last edited:
I'd argue Phil Spencer has done even more damage to the xbox brand since the xbox one release tbh

I can't think of a single game or piece of hardware that they have released under his umbrella that's hit the ball out the park

He's definitely dug themselves into a deeper hole; one which creates an extreme burden on every next new game released.

It was Redfall, then Starfield, then Forza... None of these games moved the needle, and that's the thing, Phil himself acknowledged that they weren't going to move the needle. Rather than try to create good games consistently, he convinced his boss that they should prepare for a new model of gaming because they couldn't be successful in this one. The new model of gaming wouldn't really rely on consistent quality of games or hardware sales; the two things Microsoft struggles the most with.

That's why they bought Zenimax and that's why they're trying to buy Activision Blizzard.

Phil outright stated that the "console war" is over. They're focused on GamePass and MAU now. What he doesn't realize is that he desperately needs a successful Xbox in order to build a successful GamePass. AMC created a successful A-List program while MoviePass failed, why? Because they were in the driver seat. MoviePass wanted a share of the concessions from theaters. Theaters already have 100% of the concessions, they're ideally placed to built a subscription program that is balanced and profitable.

The problem for Microsoft and why this ABK deal is going to blow up in their face is because they're actively killing B2P. They're going to offer a sweetheart deal to CoD players to join GamePass and it'll be a no brainer, but eventually that's not going to make economic sense for Microsoft. The cost related to running ABK is going to continue to swell. People think they're going to deviate and bring back a bunch of IP? That costs money. When you are running a streaming service, you want to reduce costs not increase them.

Within 10 years we'll revisit this and Microsoft will be trying to sell ABK or parts of it.
 
It does. They also have no real identity any more.

They used to be bro shooters, Halo, and Xbox Live Gold. I don't think they've found a proper identity in the transition away from that first era.

You could argue that is the exact identity that they're trying to recreate. Activision and Zenimax were the two biggest brands they had on 360. CoD, Doom, Wolfenstein, and Elder's Scrolls. Replace Xbox Live with GamePass.

To achieve the transition promised in GamePass, you'd have to be market leader or close to it. This isn't a gamble that is going to pay off.
 

SimTourist

Member
I think most people from US/Europe overlook the fact that Xbox 360 was fairly popular in Eastern Europe/Asia because of easy piracy, I knew a lot of people at that time from those regions that bought a 360 because of piracy. MS sold a decent chunk of consoles there but never saw a cent from actual game sales because modding and burning your own DVDs was super easy, a lot of people had a 360 to play multiplatform games and a PS3 only for exclusives. People also forget the Kinect sales, it sold over 25 million units, a lot of those were Xbox 360 + Kinect bundles. So between these two points I'd estimate somewhere around 30 million units or more sold. If you subtract that Xbox 360 would've landed around 50-60 million, which is what they're achieving with Xbox One and now the Series consoles. Without the pirates and the kinect boost 50 million is the stable Xbox userbase. I don't believe their actual market share declined all that much if you take those into account.
 

Quezacolt

Member
Xbox has by far the best games this generation but for some it still has no games.

They are the only ones who dare make new and interesting stuff as opposed to cookie cutter games.
What best games of this generation?
Hi-fi rush and forza horizon 5?
Those are good, yes.
Even starfield, wich was their big game of the year, i barely think about since i fimished it. It was better than fallout 4 sure, but not even close as one of the best games of the generation.
 

Thirty7ven

Banned
The real issue? Culture.

Well there you go that’s what we’ve been saying, shit.

And what she says about patronage I mean, look at those Phil Spencer emails to Nadella. It’s real. Don’t see how that much has changed in these long years, and buying ABK and their culture along with it? Doesn’t really pass the smell test.
 
Last edited:

dDoc

Member
Because they never were gonna win it.

360 came out a year before PS3, much cheaper, better 3rd party games, better online structure, had a bunch of PS central titles for the first time like Tekken, DMC, FF13. Also titles like Halo 3 and Gears were huge.

Disagree on that one. MS was kicking Sony's arse the first few years of the PS3/360 generation.

Then they kinda...imploded.

Lack of good leadership/team seems kind of obvious in hindsight. The people can make a brand what it is.
 
Here's why they're losing:





Things haven't changed one bit. Microsoft has no taste. They don't think of original ideas and they don't bring culture into their product. No spirit.


This isn't completely true because they did have some innovation and culture during the 360 gen.

The Xbox one launched changed everything for the worst.
 
Here's my armchair analysis: Microsoft seems to have a penchant for over-promising and under-delivering.

Absolutely.

  • xCloud 4k streaming mentioned years ago. Where is it?
  • xCloud focused streaming box in the ~$99 range. Where is it?
  • Ability to stream your own digital Xbox library via xCloud that they promised years ago. Where is it?
  • Xbox claimed to have the fastest hardware with the Series X. We aren't seeing that play out in real life
  • Xbox claimed the Xbox Series S was capable of outputting the same games as Series X, with the only difference being the resolution. We aren't seeing that play out in real life
  • Prior to Series launch, Xbox claimed more Enhanced BC titles were on the way, even showing Gears of War: Ultimate Edition with 4k/60fps enhancements. It never came to fruition
  • Prior to Series launch, Xbox showed ray tracing capabilities with Minecraft. It never came to fruition
  • Xbox positioned and promoted Redfall as one of the pillars of the Xbox 1st party catalog in 2023. That game ended up being one of the worst of the year
  • Xbox has, on several occasions, hyped upcoming showcases as being huge, only to disappoint with no big reveals when they knew damn well they didn't have much to show
  • Xbox sold consoles on the allure of Enhanced BC, FPS Boost, Microsoft Rewards, and other QoL enhancements, all of which have either been nerfed or eliminated altogether

I could keep going. But it's just too many empty promises. Those who follow closely have a negative perception of the Xbox brand, and those who don't follow closely just go with Playstation or Nintendo.

Xbox is in a bad spot.
 

Roberts

Member
As I long as they release stuff like Pentiment, Grounded, Starfield, Hi-Fi Rush, Sea of Thieves and its countless updates, Forza Horizon 5, Wasteland 3, Psychonauts 3 and even Halo Infinite then I'm totally fine with them losing generations.

  • Prior to Series launch, Xbox claimed more Enhanced BC titles were on the way, even showing Gears of War: Ultimate Edition with 4k/60fps enhancements. It never came to fruition
Somehow this one hurts the most.
 
Last edited:
It seems completely surreal to me that a guy like Phil Spencer, Greenberg, etc... maintains his position after so many years, with a brutal investment and such unfortunate results, worse than with Xbox One.
If I am reading the situation correctly its because those are the only ones at MS that wanted to keep things going with Xbox.

But I think things will change now that big money has been spent (activision $70 B). Next year, is a make or break year for the current leadership is what I think.
 

Mr Reasonable

Completely Unreasonable
Xbox has by far the best games this generation but for some it still has no games.

They are the only ones who dare make new and interesting stuff as opposed to cookie cutter games.


You have really low standards.




I think this isn't wrong in the context of major publishers at least. People will point to Redfall and compare it to Spiderman. But Xbox has Hifi Rush, Grounded, Pentiment, Flight Simulator, Sea Of Thieves, As Dusk Falls among others on offer and they all came out in the past few years. And while I'm currently playing Spiderman and Days Gone on Playstation and enjoying them, I think saying that you think the games I've listed are lesser in comparison is not my experience. As O orimagdos says, Xbox do put out more varied game types than other publishers, generally speaking. Just ask yourself where else are you going to play a weird medieval murder investigation adventure game with a strong interest in fonts! That's obviously a niche game in some ways, but as per the original comment, it's new, interesting and not being done elsewhere. It's ok if you don't like it, or you're not interested, but it's not worthy of condemnation just because it's not a blockbuster Marvel comic hook up that plays basically the same as the last two in the series, that basically play like the other games that you've played.
 
Last edited:
Here's my armchair analysis: Microsoft seems to have a penchant for over-promising and under-delivering.

To understand Microsoft and its decisions, you have to look into why they got into console gaming in the first place.

They thought console gaming was the future of gaming and that it was going to dominate the living room. They wanted to be apart of cutting the cord, but Google, Roku, Amazon, and Apple really beat them to punch there.

Meanwhile, mobile gaming has become bigger than console gaming and the living room is pretty much dead. In reality, they should have focused their attention more on Windows Mobile, but that is neither here nor there.

That's why they were compelled to focus on TV with the Xbox One. They thought the market had shifted because of the Wii, so they doubled down on the Kinect.

They convinced themselves that streaming and subscriptions are the future of gaming and all content, but didn't consider fully the hurdles involved in transitioning a market to that after decades of B2P. They saw Netflix did it as a minor company, but what they failed to realize is that the home video market has always been in flux.

Betamax and VHS came out in the mid-70s, but home video was NOT established for movies until WELL later. Blockbuster didn't come until 1985. Some movies would be released on VHS for a whole year after they came out in theaters and sometimes even longer and DVD drastically changed the market. It was easier to produce DVDs than VHS and they were more durable and scalable, which allowed Netflix to manage them via the mail. Netflix was founded in 1997. DVDs came out in 1996, more than 20 years after VHS, but only 11 years after Blockbuster.

Because getting movies in the mail was already more convenient than going to Blockbuster and cheaper even as a subscription, it was a no-brainer. When that shifted to streaming, nothing really was lost, it just became more convenient.

When you really look at these market shifts and how they happened vs what Microsoft is trying to do here, you see why they're struggling to have success. It's not about overpromising or overdelivering, it's that they're not reading the market well at all. And it's not just them.

Sony totally misread the market on digital music and lost the future of technology because of it. An Mp3 player walkman could have EASILY been the leader just as discman and walkman were, "digiman". The iPod lead to the iPhone, and the rest is history. I'm not sure another company was so ideally suited to take on the role that apple did as Sony, but they made mistakes with every product they had and failed to leverage.

The answer to all this is, this stuff isn't easy. It takes real pioneers and visionaries to successfully deliver change and Phil Spencer isn't that.
 

Humdinger

Member
Very nice. Thank you for posting. She had a lot of good insights, and I particularly appreciate her comment about "patronage" culture vs. the small group merit-based culture. To appoint someone to a management role who has "nothing to do" shows complete lack of awareness. The corporate types were moving in and screwing things up.

It makes me sad to think of the squandered potential. The original Xbox and the first half of the 360's lifecycle was such fun. I'm playing through some old OG Xbox and 360 titles now, and I'm having more fun gaming than I have in years. But all that magic just disappeared, right around the time Kinect was revealed. Then Mattrick took the reigns, and they massively fumbled with the Xbox One. It's all been recovery efforts since then, lately fueled by uninspiring corporate buyouts.
 
Last edited:

Ansphn

Member
Them losing has to do with leadership, culture and lack of creativity/Innovation all the way from the parent company Microsoft down to Xbox.

While brands like Apple, Samsung, and Sony continues to create and innovate, Microsoft and Xbox whole philosophy is buying up the next big thing. It's been like this and encoded in their cultural DNA from the beginning.

That's why you never see Microsoft do well in anything that has to do with entertainment. Games, movies and music requires a creativity culture. That's something a company like Microsoft will never be able to achieve and that lack of start from the top all the way down to their Xbox division.
 
Last edited:

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
It’s always a management problem. A shame that this actually began partway through the Xbox 360 era.

Xbox truly did start off as a great platform. For me you could start seeing it all go downhill with the Xbone, and now seemingly worse with Series X/S.

Seems they’re more worried about diversity than hiring people who know what the hell they’re doing.
 
Top Bottom