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

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.

So what deals has MS done that are time exclusive DLC.  I am not following you on this.  The man stated he does not like to do time exclusive DLC deals and MS does not do those deals anymore.  Exactly how does that contradict what Phil stated.  It doesn't really matters if you believe a full game is in the same category as DLC because your interpretations of what you hear is not the point.  Further in that interview Phil has with Eurogamer he gives more reasons on what he is stating.  Basically what you are trying to do is say "Phil, I know you specifically stated DLC but I FEEL, you mean all time exclusives even though you specifically stated just DLC." This feel part is where the problem is, people always feel greater meaning instead of just talking exactly what someone says.

 So let’s bring this question back up again.  Phil says he doesn't favor doing DLC exclusive marketing deals.  Since Phil is head of the Xbox division now, do MS do DLC time exclusive deals.  Let’s just limit this to what the man said and not what people like to interpret the meaning.