By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Phil Spencer criticizes buying exclusive content/DLC

SWORDF1SH on 23 December 2016
jason1637 said:
lionpetercarmoo said:

No

Thanks for the one word answer with no explanation.

SWORDF1SH said:

I think the gist of it is that we don't know what deals Phil made and what was made under Don. 

It is a bit hypocritical for Phil to act like exclusive 3rd party DLC deals are bad and exclusive games are fine.

The real test going forward is if MS will buy DLC exclusivity under Phil. If they don't this will mean Sony can pick up exclusive deals easier and cheaper.

Yea will be interesting to see if Phill keeps his word by them not buying DLC or timed exclusives. But idk if it will make it easier because MS still buys marketing like Witcher 3, Fallout, and FIFA.

Don't you think publishers would be more open a marketing and exclusive DLC deal than just a marketing deal.



Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed on 23 December 2016
Kerotan said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
If Xbox had 15 more million units sold I doubt Phil would be saying anything because he'd probably still just be the head of MGS and not the head of Xbox in its entirety. The only reason he was promoted is because the previous regime fucked the brand so hard with the Xbone launch. So 15 million more sold and of course it would be an entirely different story. You can play that game with every company in every direction. After all, these are all corporations and all are after your money.

Except he was the old regime 

It says that right there in the post you.quoted :)



LudicrousSpeed on 23 December 2016
thismeintiel said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

Of course he was part of that regime. You can speculate (on the negative end of the spectrum, naturally) how much influence he had, but logic would dictate if he had as much influence as you'd like us to believe, he'd have quietly moved on like all the others. But instead he's not only still there but now he's the Xboss.

Either way how much influence he had is irrelevant. You said he'd be singing a different tune with different strategies had their sales increased 15 million, I am just pointing out that's a worthless observation because they ALL would be singing different tunes with much different strategies in that scenario :)

And I'm sure you'll speculate on the most positive end of that spectrum (naturally ).  Of course, that would be naive.  Saying he had little to do with the direction of Xbox is like saying Shuhei Yoshida has little to do with the direction of PS.  And they have been in different positions, just last gen.  Sony wasn't bitching and moaning about "unfair" business practices from MS.  Nor were they underhandedly trying to bypass exclusive marketing deals that MS had worked out.  They humbled themselves and made a much better plan for this gen.  MS should really try to do the same, cause the constant hypocritical crying is getting old.

What deals did MS try to bypass? Are you talking about that stupid Destiny cologne? You're talking as if there are many of these things. What are the others?

And yeah, entering last gen Sony was sure as fuck singing a different tune than the one they ended up singing after they were "humbled" by the poor PS3 launch. Arrogant Sony is and was a real thing. Either way, not going to waste any more time debating this with someone who is making stuff up and throwing out words like "crying", lol.



Kerotan on 23 December 2016
LudicrousSpeed said:
Kerotan said:

Except he was the old regime 

It says that right there in the post you.quoted :)

Glad you agree :)



Madword on 23 December 2016
ROBOTECHHEAVEN said:
@bananaking21, can't u read he is talking about about dlc content and u bring up a full game. If u Wana play that game , how about street fighter 5, I can name some more if u want.
But if shu said this u would not have a Damn problem with it right . Because it's a sony person saying , that's a fact....

That might be the case, but surely a whole game is worse than just some delayed DLC... though to be fair, I really was annoyed when MS did the whole Fallout 3 DLC as It was a game i loved, so i guess it depends on the franchise, but yes stopping a group of people getting a game is far worse than some DLC.



Making an indie game : Dead of Day!

Around the Network
SWORDF1SH on 23 December 2016
LudicrousSpeed said:
thismeintiel said:

And I'm sure you'll speculate on the most positive end of that spectrum (naturally ).  Of course, that would be naive.  Saying he had little to do with the direction of Xbox is like saying Shuhei Yoshida has little to do with the direction of PS.  And they have been in different positions, just last gen.  Sony wasn't bitching and moaning about "unfair" business practices from MS.  Nor were they underhandedly trying to bypass exclusive marketing deals that MS had worked out.  They humbled themselves and made a much better plan for this gen.  MS should really try to do the same, cause the constant hypocritical crying is getting old.

What deals did MS try to bypass? Are you talking about that stupid Destiny cologne? You're talking as if there are many of these things. What are the others?

And yeah, entering last gen Sony was sure as fuck singing a different tune than the one they ended up singing after they were "humbled" by the poor PS3 launch. Arrogant Sony is and was a real thing. Either way, not going to waste any more time debating this with someone who is making stuff up and throwing out words like "crying", lol.

But what thismeintiel is saying makes more sense than what ever you're trying to say. Maybe I missed something along the line?



Rafie on 23 December 2016
Madword said:
ROBOTECHHEAVEN said:
@bananaking21, can't u read he is talking about about dlc content and u bring up a full game. If u Wana play that game , how about street fighter 5, I can name some more if u want.
But if shu said this u would not have a Damn problem with it right . Because it's a sony person saying , that's a fact....

That might be the case, but surely a whole game is worse than just some delayed DLC... though to be fair, I really was annoyed when MS did the whole Fallout 3 DLC as It was a game i loved, so i guess it depends on the franchise, but yes stopping a group of people getting a game is far worse than some DLC.

The only way I see that as fair is if that company paid for the resources for development. You know...like Street Fighter 5 and Dead Rising 3. I don't know why some people use Street Fighter 5 as an example. Is it because Capcom said that they game would have eventually come out a few years down the road? What about Dead Rising 3?

This thread is both interesting and sad at the same time. Both of them do it..hell even Nintendo does this (Monster Hunter/ Phoenix Wright..etc). Hehehe I just noticed that every game that I mentioned here is a Capcom game. Go figure!



PSN ID- RayCrocheron82

XBL Gamertag- RAFIE82

NNID- RAFIE82/ Friend Code: SW-6006-2580-8237

YouTube- Rafie Crocheron

SWORDF1SH on 23 December 2016
Rafie said:
Madword said:

That might be the case, but surely a whole game is worse than just some delayed DLC... though to be fair, I really was annoyed when MS did the whole Fallout 3 DLC as It was a game i loved, so i guess it depends on the franchise, but yes stopping a group of people getting a game is far worse than some DLC.

The only way I see that as fair is if that company paid for the resources for development. You know...like Street Fighter 5 and Dead Rising 3. I don't know why some people use Street Fighter 5 as an example. Is it because Capcom said that they game would have eventually come out a few years down the road? What about Dead Rising 3?

This thread is both interesting and sad at the same time. Both of them do it..hell even Nintendo does this (Monster Hunter/ Phoenix Wright..etc). Hehehe I just noticed that every game that I mentioned here is a Capcom game. Go figure!

Yeah there are opinions if it's right or wrong but that's not what the thread op and most of the people are talking about. Some think Phil is being a hypocrite speaking against these sort of deals. Some are defending him. Some good points being made both sides of the fence. 



thismeintiel on 23 December 2016
LudicrousSpeed said:
thismeintiel said:

And I'm sure you'll speculate on the most positive end of that spectrum (naturally ).  Of course, that would be naive.  Saying he had little to do with the direction of Xbox is like saying Shuhei Yoshida has little to do with the direction of PS.  And they have been in different positions, just last gen.  Sony wasn't bitching and moaning about "unfair" business practices from MS.  Nor were they underhandedly trying to bypass exclusive marketing deals that MS had worked out.  They humbled themselves and made a much better plan for this gen.  MS should really try to do the same, cause the constant hypocritical crying is getting old.

What deals did MS try to bypass? Are you talking about that stupid Destiny cologne? You're talking as if there are many of these things. What are the others?

And yeah, entering last gen Sony was sure as fuck singing a different tune than the one they ended up singing after they were "humbled" by the poor PS3 launch. Arrogant Sony is and was a real thing. Either way, not going to waste any more time debating this with someone who is making stuff up and throwing out words like "crying", lol.

How we forget when we truly wish to.  Here is a refresher.  And instantly, because it is MS, you excuse it with "Oh, that stupid Destiny thing."  Funny how they don't do that anymore.  Threaten of legal action from Activision and EA, perhaps?

And you are right.  It's best to bow out when there you are losing and there is no victory in sight.



 

The_BlackHeart__ on 23 December 2016

What people don't understand is that there are 17 different Phils. They cloud-sync once every 2 or 3 months.

So its kind of funny and awkward when they find out what the others have been saying.