Much like most political leaders, there's likely a hard limit on what Phil Spencer himself can impact within the greater context of MS as a massive company, so it makes sense to me that a lot of his job comes down to appearances and the like. It's mostly comes across as hollow, but at least I can believe that he's legitimately trying to steer the department into a games-centric direction as opposed to what we had before with Don Mattrick, who's influence on the brand ultimately led to me switching to Playstation as my main gaming base.
Thinking about it though, that hollowness does speak to a greater tonal issue I've had with Microsoft's marketing for a few years. A lot of their products and services lately are attempts (sometimes failed, other times successful) at aping something from a clear industry leader, and in turn their ads just come off as so cloying, manipulative, and self-righteous. The said could be said of a lot of advertising of course, but I still remember the "Scroogled" Bing campaign, a series of pretty annoying Windows phone ads that really seemed like they were speaking down to people, and that ridiculous attempt at misrepresenting the 4K features of the Xbox One S when it first came out. Am I the only one who's been rubbed the wrong way by MS marketing lately?
Considering that before Phil they had a lot more exclusives (X360 and start of X1), do you really prefer his direction?
Wish Sony and Nintendo had someone as vocal and active as the XBoss :)
So you wished that Sony and Nintendo were more about talking and less about doing?
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."