Support NeoGAF

[Heisenberg007]

Is the GFK also out of context?

Is Amazon the only place that sells Xbox Series X people buy from or are you pushing a questionable argument by omitting other retailers?

There's no need to go around in circles here, you're saying that Circana and GFK are dishonest. You don't agree with them because of some anecdotes that many buyers won't see or use and act as if only Amazon matters. I disagree and think there's a more credible and honest way of going about this.

It's clear we will continue to disagree on the big picture here, so we will just have to agree to disagree.

Apparently what you're seeing does not align with some people's Anecdotes here which they are using to paint a broader picture with a ton of missing factors and data.

Hey, apparently that's allowed so I can't say anything but point out the flaws in that, and disagree. The above back and forth was unproductive and I couldn't get real discussion through so I'll leave this thread be.

Instead of arguing so much, why not just post Amazon, Walmart, and Best Buy screenshots where Series X isn't available? Just win the argument in 2 minutes.

 

[tassletine]

Xbox used to be American as fuck, though. Giant console, giant controller called the DUKE, loud, ear-splitting sound when you turn it on. It was garish, fat, loud, expensive, and quintessentially American. Xbox was were you and your bros go on Live to yell slurs at strangers while driving around and shooting aliens together.

Xbox of today has no identity. It's a black and green box that's for "everybody." In reality, it doesn't mean anything to anyone anymore.

I agree. I'm not American and I have to say I don't like XBOX at all (controller was too large and my machines always broke) but at least it had an identity. Something to sell.
I think Spencer has become deluded, probably by radical left thinking, and thinks that this sort of speaking has actual currency that translates into dollars.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

Xbox is doomed ( not gamepass just the console). Even Phil knows it, so the only chances is to get Activision and release a Series X Pro to somehow reset the generation.

Starfield wont move consoles the way a lot of people think, could be a great game but it seems wont be a Megaton.

Microsoft might not even be able to release a Series X Pro because they havn't delivered on any of the potential of the Series X. Sony on the other hand has done much more to deliver a new gen experience with PS5. Even tho I'm bummed about GT7 and Ragnarok being cross gen, Sony has at least done a modicum of work to make games feel next gen. They've released a few "true" next gen titles as well.

I'd imagine people might actually be a little ticked off by a Series X Pro announcement. I give Microsoft credit on only TWO games- MSFS and Forza Horizon 5. I'm not going to lie I think Halo Infinite looks nice, but at the same time I find it incredibly disappointing from a tech and game perspective. Sony has had: demon's Souls, spidermam/mm, returnal, ratchet, Forbidden West, GT7 etc

PS- Sony has also outplayed MS at every turn this gen with smart decisions. Dual Sense and 3d audio were great features but also gave them a big marketing edge. If you have both consoles why buy games on xbox when you can experience haptics and "3d audio".

Buying timed exclusives-also brilliant even if the games themselves were less than stellar. Deathloop, ghostwire and even forspoken helped to fill in some of the gaps and make it feel like ps5 was the best place to play next gen games early in the generation when perception was key.

Phil has been bad in almost every respect except for services- which is a great value, however, people are waking up to the dark side if the way MS has approached GP.

Phil went "all in" on GP to the detriment of the promises he made about Series X. He even forgot about the wonderful BC program. If Phil had failed on backwards compatibility but delivered next gen experiences on SX it wouldn't be so bad. If he delivered on one of these things I wouldn't be upset. He failed in both areas. Series X is a GamePass machine and that's kinda all it is now.

 

[mckmas8808]

Microsoft might not even be able to release a Series X Pro because they havn't delivered on any of the potential of the Series X. Sony on the other hand has done much more to deliver a new gen experience with PS5. Even tho I'm bummed about GT7 and Ragnarok being cross gen, Sony has at least done a modicum of work to make games feel next gen. They've released a few "true" next gen titles as well.

I'd imagine people might actually be a little ticked off by a Series X Pro announcement. I give Microsoft credit on only TWO games- MSFS and Forza Horizon 5. I'm not going to lie I think Halo Infinite looks nice, but at the same time I find it incredibly disappointing from a tech and game perspective. Sony has had: demon's Souls, spidermam/mm, returnal, ratchet, Forbidden West, GT7 etc

PS- Sony has also outplayed MS at every turn this gen with smart decisions. Dual Sense and 3d audio were great features but also gave them a big marketing edge. If you have both consoles why buy games on xbox when you can experience haptics and "3d audio".

Buying timed exclusives-also brilliant even if the games themselves were less than stellar. Deathloop, ghostwire and even forspoken helped to fill in some of the gaps and make it feel like ps5 was the best place to play next gen games early in the generation when perception was key.

Phil has been bad in almost every respect except for services- which is a great value, however, people are waking up to the dark side if the way MS has approached GP.

Phil went "all in" on GP to the detriment of the promises he made about Series X. He even forgot about the wonderful BC program. If Phil had failed on backwards compatibility but delivered next gen experiences on SX it wouldn't be so bad. If he delivered on one of these things I wouldn't be upset. He failed in both areas. Series X is a GamePass machine and that's kinda all it is now.

He's been so bad, that it makes me wonder if focusing so much on GP was his idea or if it's being pushed on him from MS.....

 

[diffusionx]

He's been so bad, that it makes me wonder if focusing so much on GP was his idea or if it's being pushed on him from MS.....

When Nadella took over, he made it clear that he was moving MS in a service direction. No surprise that the guy who got the job after Mattrick was the guy who set up Xbox as a subscription platform, and I don't think there is any way Nadella would have kept Xbox in business without it.

 

[Bernardougf]

Loved my 360 r2d2 themed, bought because of mass effect ... and than bought the xbone at launch even with all the shit because i wanted to play son of rome and later the master chief collection , yes ONE game made me buy the xbox 360 and xbone...

Great inovative games do sell consoles! They just gave up after that ... with the never ending shit 343 halo , gears and forza loop ... so I sold real quick my xbone and never looked back.

Phil should just leave .. who knows what a great new mind can bring.. IF MS is interested in the gaming market for real.. if they just want to monopolize to rent shit netflix quality games they can fuck off

 

[AcrosstheSea]

I like Phil Spencer, seems like a good dude but that defeatist attitude is literally why Xbox loses.

There's no way you could ever win if you just assume defeat. I can assure you Sony doesn't ever think that way and they act like it.

 

[Draxon Gamer]

That's the whole point of what I said. Gamepass was launched at a time when the platform was practically dying. And instead of them going in the direction of giving the best possible games you could play for any given year, they instead chose to go with a strategy that just gave you a lot of quantity but very little quality. And that is still happening to this day.

I don't think you are aware of how Gamepass was back when it was new. It wasn't anything like now. It wasn't until months before Covid that Microsoft started getting the service in gear in preparation for the upcoming new hardware.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

I don't think you are aware of how Gamepass was back when it was new. It wasn't anything like now. It wasn't until months before Covid that Microsoft started getting the service in gear in preparation for the upcoming new hardware.

Maybe you are the one that was never aware of this whole timeline.

2010 - PS+ launched. And in addition to PSN no longer being a F2P network, Sony started offering `free` monthly games on the PS+ service.
2013 - Xbox countered with Games with Gold. Their own, `free` monthly games value add to Xbox Live.
2014 - PSnow, Sony launched the first standalone console videogame rental subscription service. Yes, they started it before gamepass.
2017 - Gamepass launch, MS counters with their own subscription rental service, with the two key differences being that you get day 1 games and every title can be installed locally on your console.
2018 - Sony starts making games available for download on PSnow.
2022 - Sony merges PS+ and PSnow, making PS+ Extra/Premium (funny thing is that PS own service already allows for game streaming (though not for PS5 games, but when xlcoud starts I am sure the media will again act like MS is somehow doing something new)

That is the entire timeline, and gamepass has been and remained exactly what it always was since its conception. The only things that are different are things that would be expected with any new and growing service. More games being available, available on more platforms (PC) and more regions. The core formula or product which is gamepass, has remained unchanged. Its not like it magically started getting better, as time passed, so did the number of games in the library on the service increase.

 

[Draxon Gamer]

That is the entire timeline, and gamepass has been and remained exactly what it always was since its conception

Gamepass was not in the same place 5 years ago as it is now. No one was coming to your conclusion back then because no one knew where Microsoft was going to take the service. Most of the complaints you have about the service looking through your other posts were not very common back then because the service changed and evolved over time until it reached it's current form. I think people forget how slow the service was to catch on at first, people though it would be abandoned like Smart Glass. It only became successful when Microsoft changed their strategy with it.

You're argument boils down to believing that Microsoft since the inception of Gamepass gave, up on pushing AAA games and instead focused on pushing smaller games through the service with a few big releases showing up on it occasionally, going for quantity over quality. That argument only seems rational if Gamepass was always in the same place it is now, but it wasn't.

The studio purchases started when Gamepass was introduced too, which further brings your argument into question. Those purchases were specifically to have more AAA output. I think you should wait for those studios to release games first before going this route in my opinion.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

When Sucker Punch, a western studio can release a game that sells a million copies in Japan and overall outsells basically anything released on the X1... that tells you everything you need to know if you're phil spencer...

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Maybe you are the one that was never aware of this whole timeline.

2010 - PS+ launched. And in addition to PSN no longer being a F2P network, Sony started offering `free` monthly games on the PS+ service.
2013 - Xbox countered with Games with Gold. Their own, `free` monthly games value add to Xbox Live.
2014 - PSnow, Sony launched the first standalone console videogame rental subscription service. Yes, they started it before gamepass.
2017 - Gamepass launch, MS counters with their own subscription rental service, with the two key differences being that you get day 1 games and every title can be installed locally on your console.
2018 - Sony starts making games available for download on PSnow.
2022 - Sony merges PS+ and PSnow, making PS+ Extra/Premium (funny thing is that PS own service already allows for game streaming (though not for PS5 games, but when xlcoud starts I am sure the media will again act like MS is somehow doing something new)

That is the entire timeline, and gamepass has been and remained exactly what it always was since its conception. The only things that are different are things that would be expected with any new and growing service. More games being available, available on more platforms (PC) and more regions. The core formula or product which is gamepass, has remained unchanged. Its not like it magically started getting better, as time passed, so did the number of games in the library on the service increase.

People want to pretend like GamePass is this revolutionary impossible-to-replicate service.

There isn't anything unique about GamePass. The only reason why Sony doesn't do day 1 and massive 3rd party is that it would eat at their core revenue model.

GamePass is going to help usher Xbox brand on its way out EARLY because of its impacts on operating income and GamePass and PC support is eroding Xbox console sales.

Sony is taking the longer route to Platform as a Service. As you mentioned they did all of this before Microsoft. They're just not willing to eschew their profitability because they know the market isn't there yet for subscription service and cloud to match B2P.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Gamepass was not in the same place 5 years ago as it is now. No one was coming to your conclusion back then because no one knew where Microsoft was going to take the service. Most of the complaints you have about the service looking through your other posts were not very common back then because the service changed and evolved over time until it reached it's current form. I think people forget how slow the service was to catch on at first, people though it would be abandoned like Smart Glass. It only became successful when Microsoft changed their strategy with it.

You're argument boils down to believing that Microsoft since the inception of Gamepass gave, up on pushing AAA games and instead focused on pushing smaller games through the service with a few big releases showing up on it occasionally, going for quantity over quality. That argument only seems rational if Gamepass was always in the same place it is now, but it wasn't.

The studio purchases started when Gamepass was introduced too, which further brings your argument into question. Those purchases were specifically to have more AAA output. I think you should wait for those studios to release games first before going this route in my opinion.

Ohhhh..... Ok. I see what the problem is here. You don't understand what I am saying.

NO. I am not saying that since the inception of gamepass, MS gave up anything. I do not even believe that even now, MS has given up on anything. The complaints I have now, have nothing to do with gamepass. Nothing at all. If you listen carefully. To not explain too much, I will try and summarize.

What I am saying is simple, gamepass or not, what MS should have always done is focus on the games. Focus on making standout AAA games that were exclusive to their platform. If you ey want to know, MS dropped the ball on this at the tail end of the 360 era. They shifted focus from the AAA games that made the 360 competitive and doubled down on the fad that was motion gaming (Kinect). So much so that they even bundled a fucking Kinect with the XB1.

Their game output didn't just dry up overnight, the shift they made that started back in 2011, eroded their brand over years. Games were getting canceled, studios were being shut down, they were losing marketing deals (COD 2015), and their portfolio was down to three games, Halo, gears, and Forza. MS let all that happen. That is a clear indication that the company's focus had shifted from AAA games.

In 2015/2016, when they were already being outsold by the PS4 by over 2 to 1, at that point, any competent company knowing they had lost that gen and now planning for the next, would have made smarter choices than what MS still went on to make. That was when MS should have started investing in acquiring studios, that was when they should have refused on just churn out great games. What did they do instead, they started off gamepass. Without even having the library to make a service like that worth it at the time. Hence why I said, games first. Its only now, that they are making this push to acquire everything... and that is what you call the fire brigade approach to solving problems.

People want to pretend like GamePass is this revolutionary impossible-to-replicate service.

There isn't anything unique about GamePass. The only reason why Sony doesn't do day 1 and massive 3rd party is that it would eat at their core revenue model.

GamePass is going to help usher Xbox brand on its way out EARLY because of its impacts on operating income and GamePass and PC support is eroding Xbox console sales.

Sony is taking the longer route to Platform as a Service. As you mentioned they did all of this before Microsoft. They're just not willing to eschew their profitability because they know the market isn't there yet for subscription service and cloud to match B2P.

Exactly!!

I mean, its not rocket science. If anyone asked me 4 years ago, what a service like gamepass needs to do to become the Netflix of gaming MS wants it to be, I could have told them exactly what needs to happen. If they had asked me if I thought was a good idea or that model would even succeed... well, I would have told them that too.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Ohhhh..... Ok. I see what the problem is here. You don't understand what I am saying.

NO. I am not saying that since the inception of gamepass, MS gave up anything. I do not even believe that even now, MS has given up on anything. The complaints I have now, have nothing to do with gamepass. Nothing at all. If you listen carefully. To not explain too much, I will try and summarize.

What I am saying is simple, gamepass or not, what MS should have always done is focus on the games. Focus on making standout AAA games that were exclusive to their platform. If you ey want to know, MS dropped the ball on this at the tail end of the 360 era. They shifted focus from the AAA games that made the 360 competitive and doubled down on the fad that was motion gaming (Kinect). So much so that they even bundled a fucking Kinect with the XB1.

Their game output didn't just dry up overnight, the shift they made that started back in 2011, eroded their brand over years. Games were getting canceled, studios were being shut down, they were losing marketing deals (COD 2015), and their portfolio was down to three games, Halo, gears, and Forza. MS let all that happen. That is a clear indication that the company's focus had shifted from AAA games.

In 2015/2016, when they were already being outsold by the PS4 by over 2 to 1, at that point, any competent company knowing they had lost that gen and now planning for the next, would have made smarter choices than what MS still went on to make. That was when MS should have started investing in acquiring studios, that was when they should have refused on just churn out great games. What did they do instead, they started off gamepass. Without even having the library to make a service like that worth it at the time. Hence why I said, games first. Its only now, that they are making this push to acquire everything... and that is what you call the fire brigade approach to solving problems.


Exactly!!

I mean, its not rocket science. If anyone asked me 4 years ago, what a service like gamepass needs to do to become the Netflix of gaming MS wants it to be, I could have told them exactly what needs to happen. If they had asked me if I thought was a good idea or that model would even succeed... well, I would have told them that too.

I think you could maybe have a service like that, that has mostly AA titles and a handful of AAA titles per year but is available to play on basically any hardware (offline).

When you can get PS4 level gaming down to a dongle, that's probably good enough to hit mass market.

 

[Draxon Gamer]

MS dropped the ball on this at the tail end of the 360 era. They shifted focus from the AAA games that made the 360 competitive and doubled down on the fad that was motion gaming (Kinect). So much so that they even bundled a fucking Kinect with the XB1.

Despite bundling the Kinect with the Xbox one which wasn't initially a problem. The DID double down they launched with a huge line up of games and had other games lined up ahead of time. Those games didn't suddenly go missing until later.

Ohhhh..... Ok. I see what the problem is here. You don't understand what I am saying.

What I am saying is simple, gamepass or not, what MS should have always done is focus on the games. Focus on making standout AAA games that were exclusive to their platform.

In 2015/2016, when they were already being outsold by the PS4 by over 2 to 1, at that point, any competent company knowing they had lost that gen and now planning for the next, would have made smarter choices than what MS still went on to make.

You're mostly correct here outside Phil buying studios, but you're taking a Phil problem and making it a Microsoft problem. Phil has been promising things to people that haven't come true for years now, or ended up being different than he told people. I suspect he did the same thing for Microsoft. Microsoft was probably not anticipating after a strong start for this generation to suddenly hit the breaks or for there to be as much backlash among Xbox fans toward Redfall as there was.

At that point you could fire him, but who do you replace him with? I think you're overlooking some important factors. By now it's clear that Phil for 7 years has not delivered, and 3 years into the new generation you can't really make excuses for him anymore.

That's fine, but now what? Do you fire Phil? Who do you replace him with? Do you spend 20x the money to try and reverse as many of his longterm bad decisions as possible and start from scratch? Does Microsoft want to lose more money?

I think that's why the Activision deal was such a big goal, because they would have a ton of experienced staff in game development, QA, distribution you name it. Where instead of spending money unnecessarily and risking replacing head honchos with inexperienced suits, they could just replace everything with entirely new acquired staff from Activision that actually have experience in the industry in all those areas. Then firing people wouldn't be much of a problem because you can just place those guys in all the roles that were failing before the acquisition.

People want to pretend like GamePass is this revolutionary impossible-to-replicate service.

Not sure where you got that from.

 

[bitbydeath]

Those games didn't suddenly go missing until later.

More specifically, it was when Phil arrived.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Despite bundling the Kinect with the Xbox one which wasn't initially a problem. The DID double down they launched with a huge line up of games and had other games lined up ahead of time. Those games didn't suddenly go missing until later.

You're mostly correct here outside Phil buying studios, but you're taking a Phil problem and making it a Microsoft problem. Phil has been promising things to people that haven't come true for years now, or ended up being different than he told people. I suspect he did the same thing for Microsoft. Microsoft was probably not anticipating after a strong start for this generation to suddenly hit the breaks or for there to be as much backlash among Xbox fans toward Redfall as there was.

At that point you could fire him, but who do you replace him with? I think you're overlooking some important factors. By now it's clear that Phil for 7 years has not delivered, and 3 years into the new generation you can't really make excuses for him anymore.

That's fine, but now what? Do you fire Phil? Who do you replace him with? Do you spend 20x the money to try and reverse as many of his longterm bad decisions as possible and start from scratch? Does Microsoft want to lose more money?

I think that's why the Activision deal was such a big goal, because they would have a ton of experienced staff in game development, QA, distribution you name it. Where instead of spending money unnecessarily and risking replacing head honchos with inexperienced suits, they could just replace everything with entirely new acquired staff from Activision that actually have experience in the industry in all those areas. Then firing people wouldn't be much of a problem because you can just place those guys in all the roles that were failing before the acquisition.

Not sure where you got that from.

Well, Phil is the head of Xbox. And he represents MS. Today we can say Ken was responsible for the PS3, but at the end of the day Sony is the one that had to right that ship. The same applies to MS here.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

I have literally overheard gamers at my workplace who say this was a fake interview. I can't believe it.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I have literally overheard gamers at my workplace who say this was a fake interview. I can't believe it.

Maybe it is.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I have literally overheard gamers at my workplace who say this was a fake interview. I can't believe it.

What do you mean by "fake interview?"

 

[TheTurboFD]

I have literally overheard gamers at my workplace who say this was a fake interview. I can't believe it.

Everything is fake when it goes against ones beliefs

 

[mansoor1980]

I have literally overheard gamers at my workplace who say this was a fake interview. I can't believe it.

it was AI generated

 

[mckmas8808]

Everything is fake when it goes against ones beliefs

That's the world we live in now. Where nothing is true and anything is possible. Of course that's not reality........but who needs that?

 

[Crayon]

The real interview is hidden in the power brick.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

What do you mean by "fake interview?"

They seem to be unaware that the articles written are from a video interview. They claim it's just made up.

 

[adamsapple]

The real interview is hidden in the power brick.

The real interview is the acquisitions we made along the way.

 

[Pelta88]

The real interview is hidden in the power brick.

I understood that reference. MisterXMedia. Fun times.

 

[SSfox]

Phil have no clue about gaming and what gamers want.

 

[Syphon Filter]

I think we learned that Pro models will be niche. It definitely won't restart the generation.

They CAN turn things around. By making and releasing quality games.

No, Starfield being an 11/10 won't do it. Starfield is one game. It'd be a start, but you need to release several good AAA games every year. That will turn Xbox around, whether Phil believes that "narrative" or not.

starfield is on pc, unless you are nintendo or some rare sony game you arent moving consoles these days anymore.

 

[MatrixReloaded101]

This title "Phil Spencer admits defeat in console space, and doesn't think great games would help Xbox's market share." is still crazy to read, I know a lot of Xbox fanboys did some soul searching after that interview .......

Enjoy all platforms guys, let the console war crap go. All platforms should be called out equally when they are in the wrong.... at least that's how I see.

Hopefully this Xbox showcase turns out to be good

 

[feynoob]

Hey Phil, have you perhaps thought of searching for a new job?
Asking for a friend.

 

[Captain Toad]

starfield is on pc, unless you are nintendo or some rare sony game you arent moving consoles these days anymore.

Being on PC is mostly irrelevant. Console gamers want to game on consoles. We aren't doing it just because the games aren't on PC.

If every PlayStation and Xbox game comes to PC, day one, I could care less. I'll still play on PS5 and Series X. I've done the gaming PC thing before. I'm not interested.

If Microsoft makes tons of great console exclusives, Xbox sales will go up. It doesn't matter if those games are also on PC or not.

 

[Slicker than your average]

The real interview is the acquisitions we made along the way.

"We" come on man...

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

I was just thinking about this some more coupled with todays leaks and it seems Microsoft want to regain market share through brute force via acquisitions rather than focus on individual product quality.

 

[Unknown?]

I was just thinking about this some more coupled with todays leaks and it seems Microsoft want to regain market share through brute force via acquisitions rather than focus on individual product quality.

Bill Gates didn't get rich by playing nice.

 

[FunkMiller]

I find this attitude utterly baffling, and I think we're now at the point where this dude needs to step away.

When I’m right, I’m fucking right.

Those emails leaked today prove beyond all doubt that this guy shouldn’t be in the job.