• 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

reinking

Member
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.
Of course he is talking about the industry as a whole. When did I say he wasn't? You seem to think I am saying things that I am not. Let me clarify my thoughts on what he said. I believe that many people are reading way too much into it. I think he is giving his general thoughts on where the industry is headed. That does not mean tomorrow. It means he generally feels like the industry is shifting toward less exclusive titles. He also believes that Sony and Nintendo are not happy about it because they have had a lot of success using exclusivity to maintain their market share. He was also not announcing that a Microsof game will be coming to PS5/Nintendo at this time.
 

bitbydeath

Gold Member
 

pasterpl

Member
It is all about gamepass now for them, day 1 releases from 3rd parties on gamepass instead of timed exclusives. I am down for that. 1st party will remain unchanged it will be Xbox/pc mainly with some bigger franchises completely multi platform .
 

DarkMage619

Report me if I continue to console war
Of course he is talking about the industry as a whole. When did I say he wasn't? You seem to think I am saying things that I am not. Let me clarify my thoughts on what he said. I believe that many people are reading way too much into it. I think he is giving his general thoughts on where the industry is headed. That does not mean tomorrow. It means he generally feels like the industry is shifting toward less exclusive titles. He also believes that Sony and Nintendo are not happy about it because they have had a lot of success using exclusivity to maintain their market share. He was also not announcing that a Microsof game will be coming to PS5/Nintendo at this time.
I wasn't sure what your point was originally. You started talking about wars and I got lost. I can agree with the points that you mentioned. The main games I see going to other platforms will be ones already in development at Activision. Games MS already has in development internally aren't going anywhere. Exclusive titles are usually just a bonus because the best selling games still tend to be 3rd party multiplatform titles.
 

kikkis

Gold Member
With the chase for mega gaas game, it simply is more profitable to sell games on all platforms. If you make sp game ala order 1886, it's probably best to make it exclusive.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
He said fewer exclusives, not no exclusives.
Exclusives are bad, excepts the ones we do.

We want all gamers to have all games, defining gamers are the ones on GamePass which is our service some consoles will never get.

Games that are only on a single console connected to the TV are bad and punish the person that bought a different game console, excuse me for a second I have to purchase another large publisher and make the sequels/new iterations of multiplatform games franchises available on your plastic box only available on my plastic box.

<Insert another platitude where one speaks out of both sides of their mouth + stretched out comparisons to Jim Ryan too> = Spencer interview thread :p.
 

Menzies

Member
Lol. This was a not-so-subtle dig at Sony. If I recall correctly, Jim Ryan initially gave some ridiculous refusal for cross-play, which was virtually 'think of the children' due to player welfare concerns.

Here it is - "We have a contract with the people who go online with us, that we look after them and they are within the PlayStation curated universe," he said. "Exposing what in many cases are children to external influences we have no ability to manage or look after, it's something we have to think about very carefully."

As if to say Xbox and Nintendo online communities are un-moderated cesspits. The truth was exposed of course during the Epic v Apple document leaks.
 

DragonNCM

Member
Phill is right.....real money is in games not in hardware. At this moment making hardware is more risky then making game & profit is very low ( comparing to software).
 
Last edited:

GigaBowser

The bear of bad news
Meanwhile, all the third parties are being bought up for what?

This is stupid.

MS and Sony have gone to PC. We already know this. Nintendo won't have mainline games on other platforms ever. Case closed.
 
Last edited:

IDKFA

Gold Member
Starfield isn't locked to one piece of hardware. Its available on Xbox consoles and PC.

It's locked to one console, which is what Phil is talking about.

"Maybe you happen in your household to buy an Xbox and I buy a PlayStation and our kids want to play together and they can't because we bought the wrong piece of plastic to plug into our television," he said.

Although Starfield is a poor example because it's single player, if Phil really did believe this then why not get Halo or Forza on PlayStation? Maybe this is also a hint than the Activision games such as COD will remain multiplatform and on PlayStation.
 
Lol. This was a not-so-subtle dig at Sony. If I recall correctly, Jim Ryan initially gave some ridiculous refusal for cross-play, which was virtually 'think of the children' due to player welfare concerns.

Here it is - "We have a contract with the people who go online with us, that we look after them and they are within the PlayStation curated universe," he said. "Exposing what in many cases are children to external influences we have no ability to manage or look after, it's something we have to think about very carefully."

As if to say Xbox and Nintendo online communities are un-moderated cesspits. The truth was exposed of course during the Epic v Apple document leaks.
Pretty much Phil all the time. Pointless platitudes.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
This thread title is odd given how much he talks about in the interview


Here is the interview Bloomberg had with Phil, he also says that exclusives are for short term business gains and hes not against it.

Phil is talking broadly here. It so dumb that dumb people are automatically implying this means starfield, Halo etc are going to be releasing on PS5 soon.

There are 3 billion gamers on the planet, when its Microsoft goal to expand to that market fighting for 100 million console installbase really puts things in perspective.

The xsx and ps5 are practically the same, they are 200-250watt consoles with 7nm+ RDNA2 graphics l, Zen2 CPU, 16gb GDDR6 ram and nvme SSDs, having to buy two for a handfull of games is so crazy. Its like having to buy a seperate TV for Netflix, Disney+, Amazon video etc
 

Topher

Gold Member
This thread title is odd given how much he talks about in the interview


Here is the interview Bloomberg had with Phil, he also says that exclusives are for short term business gains and hes not against it.

Phil is talking broadly here. It so dumb that dumb people are automatically implying this means starfield, Halo etc are going to be releasing on PS5 soon.

There are 3 billion gamers on the planet, when its Microsoft goal to expand to that market fighting for 100 million console installbase really puts things in perspective.

The xsx and ps5 are practically the same, they are 200-250watt consoles with 7nm+ RDNA2 graphics l, Zen2 CPU, 16gb GDDR6 ram and nvme SSDs, having to buy two for a handfull of games is so crazy. Its like having to buy a seperate TV for Netflix, Disney+, Amazon video etc

Just watched the video and I tend to agree. He actually emphasized that in the short term the console makers will continue to make moves to make their product more attractive and there is nothing wrong with that competition. He does question how things will look in the long term but in a very vague, non-specific way. Ultimately, there is nothing here to draw conclusions suggesting Microsoft's exclusive strategy is shifting. The headline from the gamespot article is strange indeed.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
Just watched the video and I tend to agree. He actually emphasized that in the short term the console makers will continue to make moves to make their product more attractive and there is nothing wrong with that competition. He does question how things will look in the long term but in a very vague, non-specific way. Ultimately, there is nothing here to draw conclusions suggesting Microsoft's exclusive strategy is shifting. The headline from the gamespot article is strange indeed.
The thing is what happens if Microsoft just put an Xbox app on a Windows PC, and launch Xbox PCs in a form factor of a console.
When The XSX was first revealed I thought that's what they were doing.
How would Sony stay relevant when they are essentially launching games on a "Xbox console"?
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
This thread title is odd given how much he talks about in the interview


Here is the interview Bloomberg had with Phil, he also says that exclusives are for short term business gains and hes not against it.

Phil is talking broadly here. It so dumb that dumb people are automatically implying this means starfield, Halo etc are going to be releasing on PS5 soon.

There are 3 billion gamers on the planet, when its Microsoft goal to expand to that market fighting for 100 million console installbase really puts things in perspective.

The xsx and ps5 are practically the same, they are 200-250watt consoles with 7nm+ RDNA2 graphics l, Zen2 CPU, 16gb GDDR6 ram and nvme SSDs, having to buy two for a handfull of games is so crazy. Its like having to buy a seperate TV for Netflix, Disney+, Amazon video etc


Thanks for posting this, watching now.
 

Topher

Gold Member
The thing is what happens if Microsoft just put and Xbox app on a Windows PC, and launch Xbox PCs in a form factor of a console.
The XSX was first reveal I thought that's what they were doing.
How would Sony stay relevant when they are essentially launching games on a "Xbox console"?

Most be a lot of roadblocks keeping them from doing something like this. Potentially exposing Xbox security and such. I'd love to have a PC like that though.
 
Phill is right.....real money is in games not in hardware. At this moment making hardware is more risky then making game & profit is very low ( comparing to software).
Great, then they should shut up and get out of the hardware business, let some other company give it a shot in their place instead of continuing with their half-hearted effort.

Dude is about to go 1 year + without any significant exclusive release on his platform yet he still finds time to go around on PR tours talking shit about what others should be doing.
 
Last edited:
less exclusives?

list of ip that used to be fully multiplatform but will be console exclusive to xbox moving forward:

- elder scrolls
- fallout
- doom
- wolfenstein
- prey
- dishonored
- the evil within

thats just from the bethesda purchase alone. when you add in activision and other studio's with multiplatform games, its many many more. thats a shit load of games that will now be unavailable on PS and console exclusive to XBOX. yeah, PC is getting everything now, but from a console standpoint, theres going to be more exclusives than ever. some being the biggest ip's in the world.
 
He's not wrong, Xbox has clearly been on that path for years releasing on both concsole/pc and Playstation is in the early stages of getting there. That time difference gap will only shorten once Sony figures out how to ensure quality doesn't suffer.
 

Del_X

Member
Yeah, I mean - games cost a lot of money to make. As long as we can see big ambitious games more often with AAA budgets but removing exclusivity, I'm happy
 

NickFire

Member
I swear he must go into those interviews with a devil and angel on his shoulder. The angel telling him to smile and pretend to be altruistic. And the devil telling him to say things that completely contradict the elephants in the room, just to see how many console warriors get banned when discussing the silliness.
 
Intresting when you read the whole interview, and also between the lines. King Trash gaming has an intresting video on his YouTube channel about everything what phil has sayd and alot of background information. There they are talking about theyr plans, they call it Horizon 1-2 and 3. According to Phil and MS they are now in fase Horizon2 and working to Horizon 3...King has the documents about this. I I know that some people hate him, but go look at it with an open mind....
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
This thread title is odd given how much he talks about in the interview


Here is the interview Bloomberg had with Phil, he also says that exclusives are for short term business gains and hes not against it.

Phil is talking broadly here. It so dumb that dumb people are automatically implying this means starfield, Halo etc are going to be releasing on PS5 soon.

There are 3 billion gamers on the planet, when its Microsoft goal to expand to that market fighting for 100 million console installbase really puts things in perspective.

The xsx and ps5 are practically the same, they are 200-250watt consoles with 7nm+ RDNA2 graphics l, Zen2 CPU, 16gb GDDR6 ram and nvme SSDs, having to buy two for a handfull of games is so crazy. Its like having to buy a seperate TV for Netflix, Disney+, Amazon video etc


That was a great interview.

It's telling that Phil is clear that a lack of MS presence in mobile gaming was their main reason to get into the Activision deal.

All that King money.

And the whole quote bloomberg used in their first article was a direct answer to the "why is cross platform play important to you ?" question by the host.

Glad that's clarified.

And there is noooo fucking way Kotick remains on board once the deal closes. Phil refusing to comment but his tone was very obvious.
 
Last edited:

The Stig

Member
less exclusives?

list of ip that used to be fully multiplatform but will be console exclusive to xbox moving forward:

- elder scrolls
- fallout
- doom
- wolfenstein
- prey
- dishonored
- the evil within

thats just from the bethesda purchase alone. when you add in activision and other studio's with multiplatform games, its many many more. thats a shit load of games that will now be unavailable on PS and console exclusive to XBOX. yeah, PC is getting everything now, but from a console standpoint, theres going to be more exclusives than ever. some being the biggest ip's in the world.
Wait, Prey?

Is there going to be a sequel?

Don't tease me.......
 

Akuji

Member
can we have an option to make every spencer thread invisible?
This guy ... when there are no exclusives why buy a box from microsoft or sony.
The power they hold with their IPs and studios is what enables consoles.
If they open that up completly why would anyone buy a 500€/$ box that only plays game when
u can spend the same on a box that does that and more.

Consoles are only a bit cheaper then pcs because they expect to have low profit on hardware in the early years while
making bank in the later years. Also its a good way for them to sell their games and get all the money, because its their plattform.

Also fewer exclusives on xbox? How many exclusives has there been in the last 15 years? Big titles that people actually want to play?
Do they have 1 a year? Probably a bit more then 1 but how do you go to even less then that?
Just drop it then. We dont need a platform holder that doesnt release games. And if you spend billions on
Bethesda and Activision then there is some pressure on you to get that money back. You think u get that kinda money
with releasing games on every plattform? Giving a big cut of your money to Playstation or Steam / Epic?
If a game costs 200 millions to make. Like Starfield and you sell 50million copies at 70 bucks. Thats 3.5 Billions.
If Sony/Steam/Epic take away 20% since ur a big boy and get better rates. Thats 700 million lost. or 10 Million multi plattform sales that were for nothing
Didnt even drive people to your platform but away, so you make even less on other games that could be sold in your digital shop.
And you have to sell 50millions on 70 bucks first. If you sell 10millions at full price u can be pretty happy already. The less you sell the worse this gets
since the 200million fix cost eats your profit the lower the revenue goes. At 10 million sold you would have 700million revenue, 20% are 140million.
Plus 200 millions development are 340 millions, so you have an absolute gangbuster game seller and you have an ROI of around 175% over 6-10 years.
This is already a best case scenario pretty much with 10 million at full price. And then you want to tell me ur 8 billion of bethesda or 80 billion on activision
will be made by that practise? yeah then why is starfield already locked out of playstation? Because its good buisness to do so.

Yeah i dont think so buddy. PR talk as usual, this guy never told the truth he wont start now.
 
I can see more console games going to PC but console to console. Seeing halo on PlayStation or uncharted on Xbox..... I just don't see it happening unless there are no more exclusives at that point in time.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
That was a great interview.

It's telling that Phil is clear that a lack of MS presence in mobile gaming was their main reason to get into the Activision deal.

All that King money.

And the whole quote bloomberg used in their first article was a direct answer to the "why is cross platform play important to you ?" question by the host.

Glad that's clarified.

And there is noooo fucking way Kotick remains on board once the deal closes. Phil refusing to comment but his tone was very obvious.

I think, they will use candy crush and other mobile games to try and introduce gamepass and more advanced games to these people.
 

gamer82

Member
bin exclusives games bring them to all consoles and just have the games scaled to the desired consoles spec. people can choose which console they want to support then everyone doesn't have to miss out on titles or fork out for more than one console. personally myself if i have more than one consoles i doubt both will get a look in theses days.
 

sachos

Member
I get what he is trying to say, and ofcourse i would love if every game from every platform came out day one on PC with good ports but its funny to see the leader of the platform with the less well regarded exclusives talk like this.
 

Ozriel

Member
It's locked to one console, which is what Phil is talking about.

"Maybe you happen in your household to buy an Xbox and I buy a PlayStation and our kids want to play together and they can't because we bought the wrong piece of plastic to plug into our television," he said.

Although Starfield is a poor example because it's single player, if Phil really did believe this then why not get Halo or Forza on PlayStation? Maybe this is also a hint than the Activision games such as COD will remain multiplatform and on PlayStation.

You see that TV your PlayStation is plugged to? You can play Xbox games on it via XCloud.

When your games arent 100% stuck to a plastic box, people who don’t buy your box can still have alternative means to play them. That’s pretty much what he’s implying.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
Where is the nuance with this dude? 🤡

The word "exclusive" has a new connotation in this day and age.

Exclusives are going to be more important than ever in an increasingly competitive market:

Why is Amazon spending billions in an exclusive LoTR shown?

Why Netflix has increase its original/exclusive programming.?

Disney is going to spend like 33 billion in content just in one year.

Exclusives is the only way to make your platform stand out and is also the way you compete.

But yeah....MS just buying 2 publishers was just for fun and giggles.

So. You want to reach the maximum amount of consumers right?...well, you create different ways these consumers can access your content.

But not all consumers are the same.

This is where the "exclusivity" comes in.

Theatrical window:
IMAX
4D

Then:

VOD:
Buying
Renting
Streaming(to your platform)

Then
ancillary market:
TV
Other streaming platforms.

In videogames is messy.

Day -x:
Pay to play early

Console release
Day one
Pre orders
collector edition

Subscription release
:
Arrives to your platform
Download/Streaming.

Other platforms:
Download/Streaming.

add ons.
Expansion.
MTXs

And we have the Free to play model as well.


Each stagger/way yourr release a game is an "exclusive" window you can access such content.
 

MacReady13

Member
I'm sorry but how does not locking games to a console help bring more gamers in? It didn't stop anyone from buying a PS4. A Wii. A Switch. A 360. A SNES. This guy seems to want to be the "good guy" in gaming by bringing us together with no exclusives yet I'm wondering how I can play Starfield on my PS5? Stop with the fake PR bullshit Phil and just release some fucking EXCLUSIVES. This is why we buy consoles for and it's why you sell MICROSOFT consoles for, you dolt.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
It's locked to one console, which is what Phil is talking about.

"Maybe you happen in your household to buy an Xbox and I buy a PlayStation and our kids want to play together and they can't because we bought the wrong piece of plastic to plug into our television," he said.

Although Starfield is a poor example because it's single player, if Phil really did believe this then why not get Halo or Forza on PlayStation? Maybe this is also a hint than the Activision games such as COD will remain multiplatform and on PlayStation.
I thought the exact same thing after reading it, but the title of this thread seems misleading because in his fictional example he is definitely talking about online multiplayer exclusive games - not single player - with the implication that if they(the players) have the console and the online Gold/PS+ sub they just need the game for their system to play together.

With Halo and Forza Horizon's multiplayer quite recent releases for Series, you have to wonder if this is a lie to create a sound bite because single player exclusive reception on xbox has held them back against the competition, or if we are about to see Xbox exclusive online multiplayer games releasing on PlayStation in their next iteration.

Nintendo being the gold standard of local multiplayer and with big legs for online games like Mario Kart, Splatoon and Animal Crossing for online not getting a mention in the "playing together" sort of feels like he's still faking it as a gamer; despite being Head of Windows Gaming..
 

Alan Wake

Member
Exclusives are bad, excepts the ones we do.

We want all gamers to have all games, defining gamers are the ones on GamePass which is our service some consoles will never get.

Games that are only on a single console connected to the TV are bad and punish the person that bought a different game console, excuse me for a second I have to purchase another large publisher and make the sequels/new iterations of multiplatform games franchises available on your plastic box only available on my plastic box.

<Insert another platitude where one speaks out of both sides of their mouth + stretched out comparisons to Jim Ryan too> = Spencer interview thread :p.
At the end of the day Spencer's a businessman. Hold Sony to account on everything they've said over the years and see what happens. Spencer's attitude is somewhat fresh, though. They did not make Minecraft an Xbox exclusive after they acquired Mojang, for instance. And Call of Duty will most certainly launch on other platforms in the future too. Will Naughty Dog's next game launch on Xbox? How about Media Molecule? Insomniac? Say what you want, but their approach is different.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
At the end of the day Spencer's a businessman. Hold Sony to account on everything they've said over the years and see what happens. Spencer's attitude is somewhat fresh, though. They did not make Minecraft an Xbox exclusive after they acquired Mojang, for instance. And Call of Duty will most certainly launch on other platforms in the future too. Will Naughty Dog's next game launch on Xbox? How about Media Molecule? Insomniac? Say what you want, but their approach is different.
If you do not stop and think about it yes, it is fresh and different.

In that way we can compare buying a publisher the size of Bethesda and making multiplatform franchises of many years (The Elder Scrolls, Doom?, Quake?, other titles like Starfield which were being developed for PS5 too) exclusive vs Naughty Dog who made some garage game quality bits and bobs for 3DO like 30 years ago before becoming a 2nd party for Sony.

We compare Insomniac’s 1 Xbox title vs again over 20+ years of exclusive software support for Sony’s HW (same thing for MM) to purchasing Activision (and Blizzard combo ;)).

We compare locking down Xbox LIVE to cross play when they were on top to crying about Sony not opening PSN for cross play and trying to get consumers angry about it.

We can also ignore crying about exclusives and signing up the Tomb Raider reboot timed exclusive deal and trying to pass it off as almost a full time exclusive on stage….
 
Phil Spencer is really someone horrible and deeply irratitating, trying to manipulate gamers.
All the deep hypocrisy from the number one monopoly in the world since the 90s.
 

Alan Wake

Member
If you do not stop and think about it yes, it is fresh and different.

In that way we can compare buying a publisher the size of Bethesda and making multiplatform franchises of many years (The Elder Scrolls, Doom?, Quake?, other titles like Starfield which were being developed for PS5 too) exclusive vs Naughty Dog who made some garage game quality bits and bobs for 3DO like 30 years ago before becoming a 2nd party for Sony.

We compare Insomniac’s 1 Xbox title vs again over 20+ years of exclusive software support for Sony’s HW (same thing for MM) to purchasing Activision (and Blizzard combo ;)).

We compare locking down Xbox LIVE to cross play when they were on top to crying about Sony not opening PSN for cross play and trying to get consumers angry about it.

We can also ignore crying about exclusives and signing up the Tomb Raider reboot timed exclusive deal and trying to pass it off as almost a full time exclusive on stage….
I'm just saying Sony are more about exclusives than Microsoft at this point. Fact of the matter is that Microsoft needs studios for the Game Pass service, which doesn't necessarily mean the games have to be fully exclusive. Launching on Game Pass day one can be enough (I don't need to buy A Plague Tale Requiem for my PS5 when I can play it day one on Game Pass). And yes, despite acquiring Activision, most of their games will likely end up on PlayStation just like before. Don't worry.

Exclusives and timed exclusives are fine by me (Rise of the Tomb Raider was the game that made me buy Xbox One so I guess it worked), personally I like that consoles does not offer exactly the same games. But that's just me.
 

Kagey K

Member
I'm sorry but how does not locking games to a console help bring more gamers in? It didn't stop anyone from buying a PS4. A Wii. A Switch. A 360. A SNES. This guy seems to want to be the "good guy" in gaming by bringing us together with no exclusives yet I'm wondering how I can play Starfield on my PS5? Stop with the fake PR bullshit Phil and just release some fucking EXCLUSIVES. This is why we buy consoles for and it's why you sell MICROSOFT consoles for, you dolt.
Your problem is you are exclusively complaining about playing on one platform.

He's willing to meet you halfway, but you need to bend a bit too, especially because some of the options have little to no upfront cost.

The only thing stopping some people from enjoying these games is thier rigidity to not experiment with the platforms they are available on.

What happened to the old "I'll go where the games I want to play are?"
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom