First Phil said he was not in favor of doing deals that permanately locks content away from other systems.  As been hashed out previously people seem to have their own interpretation of what the term CONTENT means.  He never said he did not favor making publishing agreement with 3rd party companies since he has done that for multiple projects not just PUG.

As I stated in my post, Many have made reference to his comments and either called him a liar, hypocritical or both based on his tweets and statements.  Even the OG of this post made reference to those comments.  

What is interesting is that this is any news.  We know MS makes exclusive contracts with 3rd party developers just like Sony and Nintendo.  People believe that this is something new that MS may be in talks extending their publishing agreement with a client especially if the agreement is only for 3 months.  Really, if you are going to make an agreement to have a game exclusive on your system for a period of time 3 months seems like nothing.  People forget that MS is the publisher for this game on the Xbox system.  Meaning that they are probably funding development for the X1 version as well as marketing and other auxiliary items.

The same people condemning MS for making a publishing agreement for the game on the X1 are the same ones who would have praised Sony for doing the same thing since they are also in talks to get the game on their system.  Also how does this not benefit the Xbox ecosystem.  If Sony gets 3^rd party exclusives on their console whether they fund them or just because they are Japanese company its all good because they are looking to extend the games on their system.  When MS does the exact same thing, they are desperate.  All the major players look to get successful games on their platform whether 3^rd, 1^st or 2^nd.  It just seems only Sony gets a pass when they do the same thing and everyone else is just greedy.

Actually yes, amazingly, there ARE people here who believe Sony doesn't have to do anything to get these deals and that publishers come to Sony in their knees begging for these deals to make their games exclusive to Sony's platforms. Back when the whole MS Tomb Raider deal was still rubbing people here raw, when presented with press releases and news about how Sony had moneyhatted that exact same franchise before, I was actually told that due to Sony's position in the industry they probably didn't even have to pay for that deal, or even seek it out, and that Eidos or whoever was in charge of TR back then actually probably came to Sony begging for a deal and Sony helped them out. You have quite an uphill battle here trying to cut through the double standards to actually have a discussion.

One thing you have to give Sony credit for, when they pay for exclusives, they make sure it never sees the light of day on another console.  MS only seems to be interested in timed exclusives.

That's because Sony has more money than Microsoft so they can lock up the games permanently.

Yeah, that's the reason PlayStation saw games like Titanfall, Rise, Sunset Overdrive, Cuphead and Dead Rising 3. Oh wait, they didn't, and never will. Microsoft has a harder time getting full exclusives from third parties because they no longer have the leverage. That's what this is all about. THEY'RE the ones actually having to buy things at this point, because they don't have a market advantage. And that's okay, they have to, it's business. They have a right to do that, just like consumers have a right to be angry about it when it happens. 

Even Microsoft's Phil Spencer himself said these things tend to happen organically. It's not always just a big bag of money. Publishers determine doing business with a platform holder by their track record and current trajectory of sales. If they take a chance and get burned, or see the opposing console excelling, then they gravitate toward the winner. No one is owed loyalty in this industry. You have to go where your sales are best.

People just tend to find Phil Spencer getting fussy about it ridiculous, since a) they've been doing it for years, b) that's his damn job. Don't bellyache to us about it, we can't relate. We're the people buying the games. When you're the platform that's fallen way behind, you're going to take heat for it, period. If the tables were turned this gen, you wouldn't hear things like this come from MS. They've had to change up SO much of their business model this gen because of Sony, and it makes the Xbox execs tend to get more candid about their frustrations than we care to hear about.

What's funny about that list of games is that the only one actually exclusive to Xbox (Sunset) only came to Xbox because Insomniac refused to give Sony the IP, which was the only way they'd publish it.

By the way did you guys hear that Xbone owners finally got all the content yesterday that they paid for when they bought Destiny or any of its DLC? LOL. Shadiest deal ever.

LMAO how is it the "Shadiest Deal Ever"?

At least the Xbox fanbase got the game the same day as the PS4 fanbase.

BTW, what did the DLC included? Dont tell me it was just skins and shitty maps, because all this fuzz for nothing would be pretty sad IMO.

That's just PR spin. Honestly, what good is keeping your IP when you're not allowed to release it anywhere else? Sunset Overdrive is a dead IP due to that deal. Unless MS wants to pony up the money for a sequel, it will never happen again.

Yeah man, real shady deal on Destiny there. Oh but it's not since you got actually got to play the game day and date with the PS4 version. I guess those deals that MS had with Activision over getting CoD maps first on 360 were the shadiest deal ever too, huh?

Not sure where the leverage part comes into play.  If I read your comment correctly you are saying that the developers/ publisher determine what agreement they want and this is based on their projections of sales.  If sales is the deciding factor then whoever sells the most consoles that generation sees the lionshare of the 3rd party exclusive party.

If that is the case I would totally agree.  

As to Phil belly aching, its hard for me to see it that way since he was asked a question and he answered it from his perspective.  You may or may not have liked his answer but its from how he views those deals which was asked.

"“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."

if you take what he stated in his response to Eurogamer when asked about exclusive deals, its clear he is talking about stuff like DLC content.  If you noticed when he became head of the Xbox division, MS doesn't do those DLC time exclusive deals anymore.  Did he ever state he was not in favor of exclusive deals or publishing deals, No but each time I see his statements used when MS make a publishing deal this comment always seem to be the poster statement used.

Actually Sunset is not a dead IP.  Only the Sunset Overdrive game as its exclusive to the Xbox.  They could make Sunset Super Duper Overdrive with extra sause and can publish it on any system they want.  They can make a Overdrive 2 and publish it anywhere they want including Sony system.  You guys really need to understand how those publishing deals work.