• 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.

Xbox Boss Phil Spencer Believes There Will Be Fewer Exclusives In The Future, And Not Just For Xbox

hinch7

Member
I mean once all most big publishers are gobbled up by MS and under a few big umbrellas.. most games are likely going to be multiplatform of sorts; from PC to consoles. So he's not wrong.

I just don't like consolation as it stifles innovation.
 
Last edited:
Blowjobs.
Make Up Lipstick GIF
 

Infamy v1

Member
🤣🤡

He is talking about Sony and Nintendo resisting the multiplatform interoperability approach for their games. You can't honestly be thinking that means they don't like Minecraft on their platform. Get lost man.

What are you rambling on about now?

Twisting and turning Phil's words seems like it's making your brain melt.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
Well, they are not "keeping" CoD exclusive to Xbox/PC since it never has been and MS already said they not going to.

I’m sure there’s some contractual agreements for at least the next couple CoDs that they have to adhere to. Once those are fulfilled, it’s up to Microsoft. It will be their ip.

I think more Xboxes sold, means more potential Game Pass subscriptions. They’d be smart to at least give themselves an exclusivity window for a few months.
 

Topher

Gold Member
I’m sure there’s some contractual agreements for at least the next couple CoDs that they have to adhere to. Once those are fulfilled, it’s up to Microsoft. It will be their ip.

I think more Xboxes sold, means more potential Game Pass subscriptions. They’d be smart to at least give themselves an exclusivity window for a few months.

I think Phil Spencer has more integrity than that.
 

Three

Member
What are you rambling on about now?

Twisting and turning Phil's words seems like it's making your brain melt.
What are you highlighting there then that you think I haven't read? You are saying that I didnt read "some people in some companies will not like this approach" . What approach do you think he is talking about?
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Well, they are not "keeping" CoD exclusive to Xbox/PC since it never has been and MS already said they not going to.

I’m sure there’s some contractual agreements for at least the next couple CoDs that they have to adhere to. Once those are fulfilled, it’s up to Microsoft. It will be their ip.

I think more Xboxes sold, means more potential Game Pass subscriptions. They’d be smart to at least give themselves an exclusivity window for a few months.



I mean, unless Bloomberg has taken major liberties in editorializing this highlighted part, it seems like Phil is also hinting that the CoD agreement will not be permanent.


 

Topher

Gold Member
I mean, unless Bloomberg has taken major liberties in editorializing this highlighted part, it seems like Phil is also hinting that the CoD agreement will not be permanent.



"unless Bloomberg has taken major liberties in editorializing this highlighted part"

Of course they are. You really think Phil Spencer is going to renege on his pledge while the issue is in doubt?

I'm amazed that I think more highly of Phil Spencer's word than Xbox fans who, apparently, think he is lying through his teeth.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
I mean, unless Bloomberg has taken major liberties in editorializing this highlighted part, it seems like Phil is also hinting that the CoD agreement will not be permanent.


They've not taken liberties they have just read the meaning of "and into the future" to not mean indefinitely and that is the correct interpretation. Nothing is indefinite.

https://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft...nd-the-existing-agreement-and-into-the-future

They are repeating similar things in this interview as they did before about the aquisition

"also interested in taking similar steps to support Nintendo's successful platform", adding, "We believe this is the right thing for the industry, for gamers and for our business."


People are just interpreting it however they like though bringing in PC like that wasn't a thing already.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
"unless Bloomberg has taken major liberties in editorializing this highlighted part"

Of course they are. You really think Phil Spencer is going to renege on his pledge while the issue is in doubt?

I'm amazed that I think more highly of Phil Spencer's word than Xbox fans who, apparently, think he is lying through his teeth.

I would tend to agree but they also made a kind of a blatant pivot regarding Starfield once the deal closed.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a change in the tone of their messaging if/once the deal goes through.

They've not taken liberties they have just read the meaning of "and into the future" to not mean indefinitely and that is the correct interpretation. Nothing is indefinite.

https://www.eurogamer.net/microsoft...nd-the-existing-agreement-and-into-the-future


"At least for some period of time" and "beyond the agreement and into the future" are very different tho.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
"unless Bloomberg has taken major liberties in editorializing this highlighted part"

Of course they are. You really think Phil Spencer is going to renege on his pledge while the issue is in doubt?

I'm amazed that I think more highly of Phil Spencer's word than Xbox fans who, apparently, think he is lying through his teeth.
 

RCU005

Member
He is saying that because they are selling less consoles for the third gen in a row.

While Sony is expanding to PC, there is no way they would release their games on Xbox, much less Nintendo.

Both have really successful console business and know how to differentiate from each’s competitors.
 
Well, in that case the industry will label Phil Spencer a liar.
Why would they start now? He's already proven this isn't a true statement.

They are saying what they believes gives them the smoothest route to getting the Activision deal done. Yes, he is lying. But, it's hard to blame him when there is a near 70 billion dollar deal in the works.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Why would they start now? He's already proven this isn't a true statement.

They are saying what they believes gives them the smoothest route to getting the Activision deal done. Yes, he is lying. But, it's hard to blame him when there is a near 70 billion dollar deal in the works.

Then you, and nominedomine nominedomine who laughed at me for saying Phil Spencer has more integrity than this, can call me out.

And then I'll be happy to say I was wrong. But I hope I'm right.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
"At least for some period of time" and "beyond the agreement and into the future" are very different tho.
It isn't really because "beyond the agreement and into the future" isn't specific and so saying they have commited to releasing on PS at the very least for some period of time is accurate. It could be forever, 30yrs, 10yrs, however many years after the agreement.
 
Last edited:

legacy24

Member
Not sure where Xbox actually wants to go in the future. Don’t sell me on having the World’s Most Powerful Console(TM) and then say that different pieces of plastic shouldn’t matter. People buy consoles partly for their good exclusives. Having MP titles as cross play is a great idea, but I still want exclusive experiences on Xbox, as I would on PS if I owned a PS5.
 

DarkMage619

Report me if I continue to console war
No. You are looking for a war where there is not one. I was mearly pointing out that it was not unreasonable for someone that had commented to think that Phil was talking about consoles since he used consoles as the example. I'm covered no matter where they put Starfield.
War? Seriously? I didn't attack anyone or attack any platforms. I was merely asking why Phil couldn't have been talking about cross platform games like CoD and Minecraft, which makes way more sense than anyone talking about Starfield, a single player game that was never announced for any platforms other than Xbox. If you took my post as a war against you feel free to report me.
 
He’s absolutely right. PlayStation as a brand hasn’t been able to achieve the everlasting staying power Nintendo has. Sony has to account for Microsoft’s ability to stay relevant in the console race with less viable franchises at their disposal. People scoff at what’s happening with Gamepass as if it’s not an important feat. They’ve eliminated the need for a strong library of exclusive games.
 
He’s absolutely right. PlayStation as a brand hasn’t been able to achieve the everlasting staying power Nintendo has. Sony has to account for Microsoft’s ability to stay relevant in the console race with less viable franchises at their disposal. People scoff at what’s happening with Gamepass as if it’s not an important feat. They’ve eliminated the need for a strong library of exclusive games.
No everlasting power? Their least selling home console has sold more than MS best selling console.

Less viable franchises? Uncharted, God of War, The Last of Us, GT, Spider-Man, Sony has no lack of extremely viable IPs.

The only thing that poses a challenge to Sony is MS unholy amount of money and willingness to play the long game. PlayStation can't afford that because the Sony corporation relies on PlayStation profits. That's what makes Gamepass a threat to Sony and why they need to be smart in how they answer it (so far so good), it's not just about the subscription numbers but about not destroying their business model just to compete with Gamepass.
 
Last edited:

Louay

Member
I can see gaas games releasing from both MS and Sony competitor platforms, more of bungie and COD what i mean going forward.

SP Games will stay the same as today.
 

reinking

Member
War? Seriously? I didn't attack anyone or attack any platforms. I was merely asking why Phil couldn't have been talking about cross platform games like CoD and Minecraft, which makes way more sense than anyone talking about Starfield, a single player game that was never announced for any platforms other than Xbox. If you took my post as a war against you feel free to report me.
Because in context "Phil Spencer Believes There Will Be Fewer Exclusives In The Future." CoD and Minecraft are in the here and now.
 
Then you, and nominedomine nominedomine who laughed at me for saying Phil Spencer has more integrity than this, can call me out.

And then I'll be happy to say I was wrong. But I hope I'm right.
So what do you think he means? Xbox is going to start putting stuff like Halo, Forza, etc on PS5? Or will they backtrack and start putting Bethesda games back on PS5?

I just need to know the rules, so I know when to say, "I told you so".
 
Last edited:

KXVXII9X

Member
I have the most to gain from this as I have a laptop that can play next gen titles and a Nintendo Switch, but I really think a lot of this is worrying. Most of the best games I've played are exclusives and continue to have some form of exclusivity. I go think exclusives is what drives competition and quality.
 
Nintendo will never change, but Sony has already proven Phil Spencer right with their new initiatives in the past 2 years. You can already play some of the biggest PlayStation studio games without owning a PlayStation console and Sony continues to integrate studios into their portfolio who are experts at porting games to the PC platform. It wont be long before games franchises like Uncharted, SpiderMan, TLoU, God of War, etc release day and date on PlayStation consoles and PC...probably once Sony's PC storefront is fully functional and online.

Agree to disagree, it's just another revenue stream for them for their big-ticket franchises. Their model relies heavily on exclusivity, and the trending away from that will be gradual at best. It's literally the strength of their advantage over MS, which at this point is considerable.

So yeah, we'll see. I'm not gonna hold my breath, it's gonna take... years and years.

But yeah, GOW 2 will be on PC in a few years. This has little effect on the overall PS strategy/advantage, which values exclusives for a considerable period of time.
 
Last edited:

A.Romero

Member
Interesting.
Im struggling to understand it though, why would a platform reduce its USP's? Reducing the selling points to just hardware, OS and services is going to make things harder for themselves.
And why would MS buy $billions worth of studios?

I guess it would work if gamepass was everywhere, because gamepass being on PS5 would ultimately provide more installbase for gamepass, but if gamepass is on playstation and ps+ extra/premium is on Xbox whats even the point in making a console? Ms might want there to be PCs under peoples TV's but sony probably wont even though it could potentially increase installbase.

Exactly. What he is saying is not matching what Microsoft is doing. If games would end up being multiplat then there wouldn't be any point buying studios.... Except games make money too meaning they are not necessarily betting on making money as platform holder but as publishers too.

Starfield is going to be available via xbox cloud gaming on iphones, android phones, android tablets, ios tablets, televisions and pc web browsers. Starfield will also be natively available on PC and Xbox Series X|S. Starfield is going to be playable on many more types of devices than Call of Duty currently. Think about that one.

I don't think that's what he meant. I mean, he literally mentioned "the wrong piece of plastic to connect to the TV" so if he didn't mean consoles then he chose his words very wrong. What he is saying here in that regard doesn't match what Microsoft is doing.

What I think it's happening already is that dev times are just too long and less exclusive games are being released compared to before.
 

Three

Member
So what do you think he means? Xbox is going to start putting stuff like Halo, Forza, etc on PS5? Or will they backtrack and start putting Bethesda games back on PS5?

I just need to know the rules, so I know when to say, "I told you so".
He means CoD only. They can't be lying about that. Other than that I think everybody knows Phil is playing this nice guy I want what's best for the industry stick mostly for regulatory approval and will still keep Halo, Forza, Redfall, Starfield etc exclusive. He just means he can't just throw out what he said about CoD and be a complete liar instead of just somewhat of a hypocrite. he has more integrity than that.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Except they're doing exactly that. Starfield was being made for PS4/PS5 previously.

If he's saying that they won't do that, it's just to help get the Activision deal approved. Just like Sony says Call of Duty is the end-all videogame and Microsoft says Call of Duty is just another game.

Quit listening to what these companies say and start watching what they do.
Well, Starfield isn't an IP already published on PS, and as I remember they never announced it for PS. Even if there were rumors that MS bought them when they were in talks to make it a PS timed exclusive.

What Bethesda did until now is to release all their console games and DLC on PS, and MS did the same with Minecraft. Maybe Starfield gets released originally for Xbox and PC and some time later on PS, following the 'first, better or best' mentioned by their CFO and matching both the MS talks of "we don't want to remove games from other platforms / no exclusives" etc. with the statement that Starfield will launch on Xbox and PC only. Regarding CoD, would remain multiplatform since day one. Previous MS stuff like Halo, Forza, Gears, etc. would remain full console exclusive for now.

It would be the way to match all their statements and to don't lie to their investors and regulators.

Jim already did that this year.

Jim/Sony have been very clear saying that Bungie future games will continue multiplatfom even on rival consoles day one, while PS Studios will focus on PS only games, some of which years later will be ported to PC. And that they will also bring some of their IPs to movies and mobile gaming. They also mentioned to be working on having more exclusives than ever before.

This is what he means by multiplatform: basically the Bungie games. But PS Studios -other than MLB exceptiton due to being an external license that demands that- will continue making PS only games themselves and also signing 2nd and 3rd party exclusives.

Exactly. What he is saying is not matching what Microsoft is doing. If games would end up being multiplat then there wouldn't be any point buying studios.... Except games make money too meaning they are not necessarily betting on making money as platform holder but as publishers too.
The platform that makes more money to most of the big multiplatform games we know is PS. So they MS will keep publishing games because bought these companies to get the money they make, plus to secure their content for having it on GP at launch.

Their focus (in addition make more money, obvious because they are a company) according to what they said is to have them on their ecosystem so to help growing GP/xcloud/etc.
 
Last edited:
He means CoD only. They can't be lying about that. Other than that I think everybody knows Phil is playing this nice guy I want what's best for the industry stick mostly for regulatory approval and will still keep Halo, Forza, Redfall, Starfield etc exclusive. He just means he can't just throw out what he said about CoD and be a complete liar instead of just somewhat of a hypocrite. he has more integrity than that.
Future CoD games? Won't people just fall back on, "oh he meant they won't take away the CoD games that were already on PlayStation before the deal went through"?
 

Rykan

Gold Member
Man, fuck them kids. Who cares if they cant play together. Go play catch or tag outside if you cant kill each other in CoD all day.

Exclusives are good for the industry. You cant tell me that Bethesda wouldve delayed the game from 2022 if they were still owned by Zenimax. First party MS and Sony can afford to delay these games because they are still making billions in revenues from console sales, third party sales and online subs.

EA, Activision, Ubisoft and dozens of smaller publishers continue to release broken games at launch. We need exclusives because it not only forces publishers to release a quality product but also it drives competition. I really dont like to hear this commie bullshit from capitalist corporations. Competition is good. If Halo was on PS, Sony would not have greenlit KZ. If Uncharted, GOW and Horizon were on Xbox, Phil would not have felt compelled to buy all those studios. Competition is what moves this industry forward. Any industry for that matter.
You're now linking quality with exclusivity, but quality and exclusivity aren't necessarily the same thing. Just look at the state that the last two halo products have released in for evidence of that, or the last couple of Nintendo "Sports" games that released with half of their content removed and added later as DLC.

These games would have been greenlit regardless because they are popular and very profitable. Not every game is meant as a "Counter" to some other games. If FPS are popular, it makes sense to launch one of your own. Same for Open World games or Third Person cover shooters.

Exclusives makes perfect sense from a business perspective, but that doesn't take away that we, the consumers, lose out. It's the reason why we need to purchase 3 different hardware systems to play the games we want. It's annoying that I have to spend another 500$ on another console just to play Starfield or Horizon:Forbidden West when I already own a system that is perfectly capable of running it. It's a waste of money, It's a waste of resources, and it fucking sucks in a time during massive console scarcity that there's people with 2 different next gen systems while people are still looking to buy just one of them.

I'd love to be able to pick which system I want to buy depending on other factors, like which controller I like best or which services I prefer, instead of picking one based on which games it can or cannot run.
 
Last edited:

quest

Not Banned from OT
You're now linking quality with exclusivity, but quality and exclusivity aren't necessarily the same thing. Just look at the state that the last two halo products have released in for evidence of that, or the last couple of Nintendo "Sports" games that released with half of their content removed and added later as DLC.

These games would have been greenlit regardless because they are popular and very profitable. Not every game is meant as a "Counter" to some other games. If FPS are popular, it makes sense to launch one of your own. Same for Open World games or Third Person cover shooters.

Exclusives makes perfect sense from a business perspective, but that doesn't take away that we, the consumers, lose out. It's the reason why we need to purchase 3 different hardware systems to play the games we want. It's annoying that I have to spend another 500$ on another console just to play Starfield or Horizon:Forbidden West when I already own a system that is perfectly capable of running it. It's a waste of money, It's a waste of resources, and it fucking sucks in a time during massive console scarcity that there's people with 2 different next gen systems while people are still looking to buy just one of them.

I'd love to be able to pick which system I want to buy depending on other factors, like which controller I like best or which services I prefer, instead of picking one based on which games it can or cannot run.
Be thankful it is only 3 manufacturers and not 5 plus like the old days. Also there's a lot less exclusives now days. Buying a gensis, snes, turbo graphix 16, game boy, Game gear, lynx, neo geo not to mention CD add ons for 2 of them lol.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Be thankful it is only 3 manufacturers and not 5 plus like the old days. Also there's a lot less exclusives now days. Buying a gensis, snes, turbo graphix 16, game boy, Game gear, lynx, neo geo not to mention CD add ons for 2 of them lol.
Those were the best times tho!
 

DarkMage619

Report me if I continue to console war
Because in context "Phil Spencer Believes There Will Be Fewer Exclusives In The Future." CoD and Minecraft are in the here and now.
There are several games even Sony is releasing that aren't exclusive anymore. He could just as easily be talking the industry as a whole not just MS. People laughed at the idea of MS releasing their games on PC. Now both platform holders do so.
 

Astral Dog

Member
As much as they are preaching this magical future where all game companies are holding hands and publish every title for all platforms, the reality is a bit more complex.

Regardless of there being less and less real exclusives, first party publishers will continue to spend millions to 'incentive' gamers to pick up one of those plastic boxes, the most common and tested strategy is through quality content, be timed exclusive, extras or whatever, but the effort will be there. Microsoft is moving towards selling a subscription service with tons of content instead of just a closed platform, as launching a single platform is riskier than ever due to the rising costs of developing these games, its true. but you still don't see them rushing to place all their brands on competition hardware because they are selective, Sony won't be launching God of War day one Xbox edition, or even God of War Ragnarok PC day one as they want those PlayStation players this holiday

Simply without any quality software the main differentiator on game consoles would just be hardware based like portability, graphic processors, price, form factor or some gimmick like VR, that's pretty lame for the game industry, exclusives won't be as essential, but they will still exist and be important

you also don't see streaming companies moving their shows to other platforms, even if they are old ones or unpopular
 
Last edited:

CatLady

Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Yeah he's right this good guy Phil, why locking a content to one piece of hardware ? They wouldn't do that, like Starfiel... oh shit

Good thing he's not locking Starfield to one piece of hardware.

It will be available Day 1 on PC unlike Sony and Nintendo exclusives. It will be on xCloud, phones, tablets and probably Samsung TVs. If what you're whining about is it won't be on your platform of choice, there are numerous other ways you can play it and it is not Xbox's responsibility to provide their competitors with their 1st party AAA games.
 
Top Bottom