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

Context is key when reading text from someone especially during interviews.  Here is the text from Phil I believe you are referencing but I believe it doesn't mean what you believe it does.  Its contextualized to a specific point and doesn't cover timed exclusivity the way you think it does.

“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.

“I don’t think it’s good for our industry if we got into a point where people are holding back the technical innovation of game developers based on a marketing deal. I don’t know anything about what’s in other people’s deals.


Sure context is key. And the important part is that MS have been doing, actually invented, what he says he isn't a big fun. And it is fun that he think a 30 day partial content timed exclusivity is worse than a full year of full exclusivity.

You are not reading the quote correctly.  He is stating that Yes, MS make marketing deals with developers/publishers but they never hold back any content in those deals or make such deals.  Yes, they will make time exclusive deals where they pay for a period of time where the game is exclusive to their system but never will they make a time exclusive where the developer/publisher will lock features or content from another system permanently.

My point is that people will take a statement like this and generalize it to fit their opinion but that is wrong.  That is a way for people to twist the context of a statement to make it fit an opinion instead of taking it exactly as it was phrased.  Even in your statement you appear to take that statement and conform it to your opinion instead of taking it as phrased and its only from a part of the interview which doesn't cover the complete context of the question asked.  This is the problem with the internet where people take pieces and parts of an answer and conform it to an opinion which most times isn't correct.

When you take a statement and try to conform it to your opinion, you first need to ask yourself are you really reading the statement or are you trying to make it conform to what you want to believe.  In order to make that statement conform to your opinion, you would need to make follow up questions to clarify your additional assessments.  Without doing that, you are just making an assumption on what you believe Phil is saying which isn't correct.

Last edited by Machiavellian - on 11 December 2019