By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Imaginedvl on 12 July 2025
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
Imaginedvl said:

Except, it is not an excuse. You are comparing apples and oranges. Nintendo is definitely not in the same boat. Mario, Zelda, etc will ALWAYS make Nintendo relevant, even if they have a bad generation; people who got crazy about the Wii simply waited the next gen. Not to mention the Switch and the portability which makes it a completely different beast all together. That's not at all the same story.

Same goes for the PS3 and Xbox 360. A "significant lead"... What are you talking about, there is a big difference between having one console coming out a year later but with people waiting for it and 70% of the marketshare with a console (the Xbox One gen) that was completely under-performing the other one and nobody looking forward for the next one and again, comparing apples and oranges. 

The ecosystem and the domino effect of the Play Station 4 is the main reasons why Xbox could not come back from the Xbox One debacle. 70% of the people wanting a home console during the last generation went for a PlayStation 4 and for good reasons, if you really believe that it was almost impossible for Xbox to come back after that with a console and offering that was basically similar to the Play Station 5, you are delusional. Why on earth would anyone who invested so much in Sony's ecosystem switch for Xbox when the offering was basically the same on both side? This is simple logic. How can you even argue against that is beyond me. 

And how Mattrick leaving by himself after screwing up is making things EVEN worse for Spencer? Can you enlighten me here... I get that you seem to really dislike the guy (Spencer) but come on, this makes no sense.

The 360 sold more than 40m units in the USA, the PS3 couldn't surpass 30m. While on the other hand the PS4 beat the One by only 5m in the USA. Despite the Xbox One debacle, there were still almost as many people in the Xbox ecosystem as there were in the PS ecosystem. Globally, the Xbox One was a disaster; but in the USA it absolutely still had a basis to have its successor beat the next PS, because a lifetime sales difference of 5m is not much in the US market.

You and some others try to portray history as if Microsoft was always doomed to lose everywhere, so Spencer did a good job actually. But that isn't true. It was doable to beat the PS5 in the USA, it's just that Spencer failed. So right now the Series trails the PS5 by around 10m units in the USA with the gap continuing to grow every month.

Mattrick supposedly leaving by himself isn't making things worse for Spencer specifically, but for Xbox management decisions in general. What I said was a statement about how poorly run that company is, if it's true that they didn't even want to fire Mattrick. In any case, whether or not Mattrick would get fired wasn't Spencer's decision to make, so this has no bearing on the thread's question.

I don't dislike Spencer. I am answering the thread's question, that's all. Mattrick did do a lot of damage to the Xbox console business, but he didn't deliberately attempt to kill it like Spencer is doing. That's why Spencer gets the vote.

I do not share your view on how easy or even doable it was to beat the PlayStation 5 after what happened last generation, and the domino effect from the rest of the world did not give any chance in the USA either. I won't repeat myself; you've got my point, and you disagree. Still, I also totally disagree with your assessment of the situation Xbox was in at the start of the generation and how deep they were (too deep) to do anything about it unless they came up with something miraculous. At this point, we can speculate about it, if you want, but it will lead nowhere, to be sure, as there is no way to prove anything.

Mattrick's firing is related to the thread, yes :) Similarly, I strongly disagree with you that it has no impact. After all, we are talking about who did the worst here and the fact that he left by himself to then go screw up Zimbra... It is definitely in line with the thread; it shows how bad a leader he was to start with.

Spencer did not help the console business (because it was not possible) and focused on other areas, but Mattrick made it impossible to recover in the first place; so there goes my vote :)

Let's agree to disagree.