By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
RJ_Sizzle on 04 October 2017
Edit Thread
Machiavellian said:
RJ_Sizzle said:

Yeah, that's the reason PlayStation saw games like Titanfall, Rise, Sunset Overdrive, Cuphead and Dead Rising 3. Oh wait, they didn't, and never will. Microsoft has a harder time getting full exclusives from third parties because they no longer have the leverage. That's what this is all about. THEY'RE the ones actually having to buy things at this point, because they don't have a market advantage. And that's okay, they have to, it's business. They have a right to do that, just like consumers have a right to be angry about it when it happens. 

Even Microsoft Phil Spencer himself said these things tend to happen organically. It's not always just a big bag of money. Publishers determine doing business with a platform holder by their track record and current trajectory of sales. If they take a chance and get burned, or see the opposing console excelling, then they gravitate toward the winner. No one is owed loyalty in this industry. You have to go where your sales are best.

People just tend to find Phil Spencer getting fussy about it ridiculous, since a) they've been doing it for years, b) that's his damn job. Don't bellyache to us about it, we can't relate. We're the people buying the games. When you're the platform that's fallen way behind, you're going to take heat for it, period. If the tables were turned this gen, you wouldn't hear things like this come from MS. They've had to change up SO much of their business model this gen because of Sony, and it makes the Xbox execs tend to get more candid about their frustrations than we care to hear about.

Not sure where the leverage part comes into play.  If I read your comment correctly you are saying that the developers/ publisher determine what agreement they want and this is based on their projections of sales.  If sales is the deciding factor then whoever sells the most consoles that generation sees the lionshare of the 3rd party exclusive party.

If that is the case I would totally agree.  

As to Phil belly aching, its hard for me to see it that way since he was asked a question and he answered it from his perspective.  You may or may not have liked his answer but its from how he views those deals which was asked.

"“I don’t know what deals get written. I’ve been pretty open about, I’m not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don’t see that in the deals we’ve done with Assassin’s and Shadow. We’ll have a marketing deal on those, but I don’t say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can’t play."

if you take what he stated in his response to Eurogamer when asked about exclusive deals, its clear he is talking about stuff like DLC content.  If you noticed when he became head of the Xbox division, MS doesn't do those DLC time exclusive deals anymore.  Did he ever state he was not in favor of exclusive deals or publishing deals, No but each time I see his statements used when MS make a publishing deal this comment always seem to be the poster statement used.

And we're saying, what's the difference? Getting some skins and some maps held back from certain ports is not comparable to whole games being held off for a certain amount of time. Platform makers do this to make their consoles more attractive understandibly, yes. You can't say you're a not a fan of making tactical business decisions in favor of your product and turn around and do them. It's what the man is employed to do. Platform makers spend entire generations looking for ways to subvert each other. Phil didn't get his recent promotion at MS because Xbox One was successful, he likely got it due to how aggressive he was with trying to turn the division around. He showed initiative with the money he had. All while doing this with his hands in his pockets pretending like he's a cool dad.