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:

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.

The question is, "Why would he say that?". Obviously, he's trying to make it seem like this is a raw deal for gamers when things like this happen, when in reality, it's the very nature of his business. It doesn't matter if it's timed DLC or a full or timed exclusive. These deals are in place to give the platform holder an advantage over their rivals. MS is getting less of these timed deals, or ANY kind of deals due to their place in the market. They get still get the ad exclusives, but the days of getting content advantages less over his rivals isn't by choice these days. No matter what he says. 

You can't limit the conversation to DLC deals, because that's not even what this topic is about in the first place. It's about MS looking to secure a title that's not theirs for longer to keep the competition for having it. It's all in the same ballpark when it comes down to it. You have to remember, if the Xbox One were successful, he wouldn't even be in the position he's in, Mattrick still would have had the job. It's not like he can keep the position by being passive, he still has to make some kind of moves. Hence, the reason he's trying to extend this deal and the reason PS fans will NEVER get Cuphead and other titles. 

Phil isn't a fan of these kinds of deals because his company is in a lesser position of making them, like they used to.