Yeah, obviously MS getting all the 360 timed exclusive deals had nothing to do with their marketshare at the time. How does he explain the role reversal this gen then?

Don't overlook the subtext folks. It's not about what he said, it's about what he inferred.

That's a new lever of Spencerness, he never stops to amaze me

If your competition uses cheap tactics, you have to use even cheaper tactics. Phil you have more money, outmoneyhat Sony. Nice guys end last.

I feel like if you could simply buy exclusivity for the same price regardless of market share, then both Sony and Microsoft would have adopted Nintendo's policy for selling consoles (by that, I mean Sony and Microsoft generally, at least at first, sell consoles at a loss to ensure a larger market share, whereas Nintendo sells their consoles at a profit). While it is undeniable that having a larger number of consoles sold to customers increases the revenue stream received from software and services, I think, under Phil Spencer's argument, it would be more logical to take Nintendo's route. As such, Microsoft and Sony would therefore get a much more substantial revenue stream in the early years, which they can use to buy exclusives (which, following Spencer's logic would cost the same regardless of market share). Said exclusive would then ensure a larger market share for the purchaser in the long run, especially since the early years are usually the most important for determining the dominant console for the generation.

I think Phil Spencer's statement is only applicable when the console manufacturer is paying for the entirety of the development costs of the game, and usually when it is a new franchise. I think with things like Rise of the Tomb Raider and Street Fighter V, market share is highly relevant.

Oh, Phil. You're hilarious.

How would he even know? Does he have access to Sony's financial records?

Doesn't make sense, sounds like he got asked a question that wasn't in the script. Not his fault, he can't be bothered to think stuff up on the spot. He's just a face for the business

Xbox hemorrhages money for Microsoft, and they most certainly don't allow Xbox to just dig in mommy and daddy's wallets. 

Playstation on the other hand is Sony's most lucrative division, and receives funding accordingly. 

No it isn't, but it is profitable, both in terms of this generaion and over the lifetime of the PS brand.

I think I will cut Spencer a bit of slack if he got a little blind-sided by the question. What he might have been trying to say, but lacked the thought processes to formulate a comprehensive response in time, is that simple market share isn't the whole story when it comes to securing 3rd party exclusives. And in that respect he would be right. An exclusive FPS will cost Sony more than an exclusive...well almost anything else. This is because the predicted revenue loss from not having an FPS on Xb one is greater than the predicted revenue loss from most other genres, i.e. FPS sells goodly on Xb one so you gots to pay more to keep my FPS off Xb one. Therefore it is highly unlikely we will see a permanent console exclusive 3rd party FPS on PS4, at least not a AAA one.

Market share is part of the picture, but not the whole picture.