With all those advantages, most Xfans still would rather blame everyone else but Phil. It's baffling.
Their marketing approach over the past decade suggests they really do listen to fans and that they pay attention to the kinds of discussions that happen on forums like these. Their heavy marketing focus on function, value for money and technical features has a very obvious intended audience among gaming enthusiasts. It's not surprising that it inspires confidence and approval on boards like these - MS largely talk the same language in their marketing that forum posters do.
By mainstream corporate model we mean making money by providing goods and services that people want? Versus the rich kid that tries to buy relevance at every turn rather than earn it?
Wall of text for something so simple:I love how everyone just ignores the question and turns this into a "you-can't-have-one-without-the-other", as though they're mutually exclusive. Lol. The silliness of some members in Gaf has no end, huh?
The OP didn't ask if you preferred less game output and more open discussion with users vs more game output and no open discussion with users. The OP asked, do you prefer more open discussion with users or less? It would surprise y'all to know that, you can have both; it just so happens that we don't, at the moment and that might and could change. In other words, let us suppose both Sony and Microsoft had the same game output; which style of fan interactions would you prefer; Phil's and Xbox or Jim and Play Station? Granted, you can believe, just for an instant, that the game output has nothing to do with their ability or lack of ability to interact with their fans... God forbid.
Xbox could change management, Phil can leave... A 100% suit could take the helm, and we end up with a leadership style similar to Jim's. And vice versa; Sony could take a new approach to help bolster positive PR (whether they need it or not isn't the point), by having more open/transparent fan interaction. Who knows; Jim may want to retire soon. What about five years from now, or ten years from now; maybe the new person in charge of Play Station might be an avid gamer like Phil, and might be more open to engaging with and interacting with the gaming community... Who knows?
To answer your question OP; I prefer Xbox's style of fan interaction. In fact, I think if Jim was a gamer himself, or interacted more with the fans/users, it can only be a plus for Play Station, and their supporters. How is that a bad thing, really? Of course, one can argue that if you stay out of the front lines, you don't have to worry about bad publicity, or "saying the wrong things", as Phil is often called-out on. But still, there is some measure of mutual respect and appreciation that gamers may have for a fellow gamer. People wonder why anyone believes Phil, or why people like him, and I'd argue it's because of his personality, and the fact that he's an avid gamer.
I'll prove my point with simply this - imagine if Xbox took the Sony approach to fan engagement/interaction... That perceivable low game output, followed by silence in every realm of gaming news, media and entertainment. Like it or not, Phil's and Xbox's approach helps public perception, at least in terms of making the company seem more...human or humanized. There are people (myself included) that have played matches with/against Phil and even chatted with him briefly online. Imagine being a huge fan of Play Station and being able to get into a match with Jim Ryan, and having a small but personal chat about a game both you guys just finished playing. It can only add to player/user perception of the brand. Or, if not the brand, the leader.
But, I look at all these responses and see so many people not being able to separate the two things, as though they genuinely believe it has to be one or the other: either the leader is sociable and they make zero games, or either they're not sociable at all and make all the games.
No wonder why I've seen people call this place Sonygaf. Smh
www.eurogamer.net
One and done. I get what Phil is doing, very US, very corporate and "it's about having a conversation". Sony meanwhile is just putting out games and killing it AGAIN and AGAIN.
This ain't it....Master Chief.
Yes because coming in 3rd and standing on the podium celebrating you are 3rd best in world at something is embarrassingSo basically you want more of this:
Oh and more of this too:
Embarrassing.
I have gamed with Phil in PUBG and some Warzone and dude likes to play games but he is horrible at shooters anyhow and I don't mean just from not being able to kill someone but you can tell if someone is any good by their movement and his was bad
Hey if we have to deal with the constant persecution complex we might as well have a bit of fun, right?
Seems to be an egg chicken situation. I didn`t post any threads and I don't see how this was a console warrior thread. It now is for sure.
Really?
Yep, just normal questions being asked and not console war bait.
Protip. If you see Microsoft VS Sony and Nintendo, or any mix of that in the title, it will be a console warring thread. It does not matter what other words fill the space.
Their results over the past decade shows that Sony and Nintendo made a way better approach at listening what their fans wanted, delivering that, marketing it in an optimal way and selling way more as a result.
Microsoft put resources into areas like backwards compatibility, cross-platform play, Game Pass, Play Anywhere, VRS, VRR, 1440p support, RTX... all the kinds of things that are important in enthusiast circles. Accordingly, they became a prime ammunition in console wars. Nintendo and Sony have been criticised heavily for varying levels of failure in these areas and are often evasive when asked directly about them in interview.
Yep everyone here is a fanboy but you, instead maybe try to understand that when people call you out on your bullshit, multiple times, in multiples threads, you are always the common factor.Like the ps5 that couldn't do FSR2.0 or all the MS PR terms that you love so much.
I don't know, I feel like if I was the 3rd best in the world at anything I'd brag about it about as often as I could....But being the 3rd over a grand total of 3 people , I'd shut the hell up.
