To me it screams that they don't know what exactly they want to do with Xbox. A lot of the steps they have taken lately has pointed to wanting to go full streaming, possibly multiplat. With the top brass at MS barely talking about the Scarlett, instead focusing on their xCloud and GamerPass future, which they will probably try to put on multiple platforms in the end. Even going so far to say that the main reason for the acquisitions was to increase content on those services. And MS's Matt Booty said that they would most likely allow them to continue making multiplats if they wanted to.
If I had a guess, Spencer is trying to convince them to hold off on those plans to help push the Scarlett. However, if Scarlett enjoys the same fate, or worse, than the XBO, you can bet they'll initiate Project Multiplat real quick. Of course, Spencer isn't great with his messaging, either. Just two years ago he was downplaying 60FPS, only now to say it is the most important thing to Xbox going forward. I wouldn't be surprised if they, and Xbox fans, use that as the excuse as to why Scarlett exclusives don't look as good as PS5 exclusives, especially if it actually does turn out that the PS5 is more powerful. "Well, of course they don't look as good, they are focusing on what's important, 60 FPS." With the argument being just 2-3 years ago, "X has more 4K games."
It's also important to note, like you said, that a lot of the bigger studios MS bought all have multiplats that they will be making first before shifting over to Xbox/Windows exclusively. It may not be til 2021/22 til we see those. Unless they are smaller games. Or are rushed and/or lack quality. With the track record of the last couple of years for XBO exclusives, either one of those are a possibility.
My favorite thing about VGC is reading these interviews and comments from people at Microsoft or their studios and seeing how some here will twist and turn and remove context until they're left with what they wanted those interviewees to say in the first place. For example Matt Booty said if the game would benefit from a multiplatform release in terms of the way the game is designed, it could release on other platforms. Like Minecraft. But big releases would stay off other consoles. Nothing about "if they want to". Why wouldn't any developer WANT their games to be multiplat? You think the guys at Naughty Dog, all things being equal, still being funded by Sony, wouldn't want their art to be experienced by PC and Xbone users as well? Of course they would WANT that.
Another example of removing context and twisting words is this downplaying 60 frames per second nonsense. Never happened. Of course they harped on 4k, just like Sony did marketing the Pro. And always good to see your latest "if X happens, MS isn't making any more consoles" prediction. You're like 0 for 23 or something, but keep swinging for the fences friend lol
Good to see we have a mind reader, here. So, you know that ND would rather be on all platforms? Instead of the ease of developing for one, being to push it to its limits, and still selling 10s of millions of copies?
The only one twisting here is you. He was asked if the newly acquired studios could make multiplats or not, and his exact quote was, "Yeah, I think we would. I think that the question is less binary about, ‘should it be on Switch, should it be on PlayStation?’ and more, ‘does it make sense for the franchise?'" Yes, he goes on to give examples like Minecraft for multiplatform and Forza for their own platform. But, those are just current examples. And he never states that it depends on the size of the franchise/game. Oddly, or maybe not so oddly, he confuses the messaging there, too. He gives Sea of Thieves as an example of a game staying on their platform, when much like Minecraft, it would benefit having a larger audience.
And there's no ifs, ands, or buts, Phil was downplaying the importance of 60FPS. Again, here are the exact quotes:
GC: What also frustrates me is that the only number I do care about is the only that you and Sony don’t obsess over. Which is 60fps, which I understand is easier to do on the Xbox One X than any other console.
PS: That’s correct. But… [laughs] Why do you care about 60fps?
GC: It’s the only number that affects gameplay and yet it’s the only one you two never go on about! No-one can tell the difference between 4K and 1080p and all that nonsense…
PS: You just broke your whole argument now!
PS: You just said these games could run on a Commodore 64, they would not run at 60 frames per second on a Commodore 64.
GC: Uridium did.
PS: [laughs] I’m not disagreeing with you. But it’s a subjective opinion that that’s the only one that matters.
GC: It’s the only one that affects gameplay.
PS: …visuals do affect gameplay.
GC: Not the resolution though. Not in any manner close to the difference a good frame rate makes.
PS: Don’t get me wrong. I love frame rate. I love Ori, it’s one of the reasons I love playing Forza Motorsport. But you have to go back to what you said before: most people. What frame rate does Minecraft run at?
GC: I know, but if the frame rate is below what it needs to be – and it does vary for different games – they do notice. They might not identify the problem, but they know something’s wrong.
PS: Some people do. Some people just want to have fun playing Lego Batman.
He ended the discussion by saying, "Not everybody understands what 60FPS vs 30FPS means. They're not all as technical as you are." And I actually agree with him there. Of course, now he states that 60FPS will be the top priority going forward. That just seems strange considering his take not too long ago, correctly stating that a lot of people don't care. My guess is that they know they won't be matching Sony when it comes to visuals, so they will fall back on the "We're aiming for 60FPS always" excuse.
And I think you mean 0 of 1. The 2nd is if Scarlett fails to sell, they will be out of HW. We'll see who's right on that one. But, you keep that good fight alive.