By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 06 April 2022
Edit Thread
ConservagameR said:
Machiavellian said:

I am not sure where you got the ideal I believe you have a good or bad opinion on gaming services.  I am pretty sure I have made no reference to that opinion since most of my points are against your stance that GP needs Sony validation. 

PS Plus is not a service, PS Now is a service.  I believe you are getting confused on the difference between the 2.  Never stated that this was not so, the difference I continue to state is the direction.  I also made the point, that MS stance on GP is that its the driving force for their future and this new service by Sony is still an extension of their console business.  There is a clear distinction on how each company views their services.

See one does not equal another.  Just because GP is considered the global direction for MS the company does not mean that they do not still make the Xbox console.  Just like MS makes mice, keyboards, surface PC and laptops.  The hardware are extensions of MS business while the services is the Main goal, its the opposite of how Sony view their eco system where the console hardware is the main and their services are extension of it.

Not sure if Phil direction was a no brainer, really does not matter, he made the right decisions and in the eyes of the CEO, those decisions gained him promotions from head of xbox to head of gaming for MS.  So whether those decision were no brainers means nothing, execution is what companies look for.

Xbox will be around for as long as MS can sell consoles, just like them selling mice, keyboards, laptops ect.

That's because I never said Game Pass needs Sony validation. I said XB hoped for validation through a potential Game Pass competitor from Sony.

So saying what you think, or what you are, means everything, yet nothing, if you don't follow through and deviate instead?

Netflix is a service because that's what a service is. If Netflix started selling their own hardware to be able to make use of their service, that would no longer make them a dedicated service company. Now if those devices were free with a sub, then they would still be considered a service only company.

This means MS (with XB), as well as Sony (with PS), are both partially service companies. As I already put it, hybrids, though one is more of a true hybrid than the other at this point, or one is closer to becoming a full service you could say.

Companies do prefer employees with useful idea's that can execute. If their idea's aren't useful, then they just want a yes man who will do what they're told. Phil at the very least can execute. How many useful new idea's were his, that's hard to say.

I can't really argue much with that. MS would have to come up with some other big game plan prior if they were going to axe XB. For as long as XB has been around now, it looks as though MS thinks it's worth keeping no matter what.

At BOLDED:  You are going to have to help me understand the distinction of this statement.  What does that even mean.  Who is XB, are you saying fans of the Xbox or the Xbox division.  If its the fans  then I still have a hard time understanding this reasoning.  There is no fans I know of who is purchasing a GP sub because of Sony validating some way MS direction.  If its the Xbox division, it also does not work because GP is global to MS gaming not just the Xbox division.

If Netflix sold a dongle for their service, they would still be a service company.  Their primary focus of the company is their service and any hardware made towards delivery of that service would be just an extension of their business.

But MS is not a partial service company.  Their whole direction is towards putting their products in a service.  Actually when Nat took over that was the direction he took the company.  

Doesn't matter how many useful ideals are Phil, it only matters if he can execute them.  This is why you hire talented people because you do not have to have all the good ideals, you just need to recognize them and execute them.  This is why some managers succeed more than others.  Hell GP might not eve have been his original ideal, but it still does not matter.  If he as the manager took it, executed it and got the CEO fully behind it then its his success.