By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Papa Phil: Control is coming to GamePass

DonFerrari said:
d21lewis said:
I admit that I do love the Xbox brand but I'm gonna defend Phil anyway. There were times I think he was TOO transparent and it hurt the company. One example was when they got Rise of the Tomb Raider exclusive for a year. People asked if it would be coming to PS4 and he was like "Yeah, we have it exclusive for a year.".

People just waited for the PS4 version. Nobody won. He could have and SHOULD have spun it but he didn't.

We know that isn't how it happened. It was due to a very odd exclusivity claim made on E3 that people were questioning and even then they took a long time to confirm it was timed exclusivity.

Plus couple months or so after he said how much he hated timed exclusivity and the like.

That's exactly how it went. First it was spun at E3. When questioned he says it was timed exclusive. Unless there was a time he lied and I missed it, he came clean immediately when asked. I think was on Twitter as well but we can dig up the exact date it was announced and the exact date he said it wasn't exclusive, this being the internet and all. 

*Edit* did some googling. E3 was June 10-12 2014. 

This article was August 13, 2014

https://www.polygon.com/2014/8/13/5998285/microsoft-tomb-raider-xbox-exclusive-limited-time

Can't find the tweet where some guy asked if it was exclusive and Phil replied that it wasn't--mainly because there were so many people asking the same thing.

In any case, if you can show me an example between announcement date and the date of this article where Phil lied, I will concede that you F'd me in the A. If not, YOU  just got F'd in the A!!

Last edited by d21lewis - on 10 December 2019

mZuzek loves Smeags. 😢

Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

We know that isn't how it happened. It was due to a very odd exclusivity claim made on E3 that people were questioning and even then they took a long time to confirm it was timed exclusivity.

Plus couple months or so after he said how much he hated timed exclusivity and the like.

Context is key when reading text from someone especially during interviews.  Here is the text from Phil I believe you are referencing but I believe it doesn't mean what you believe it does.  Its contextualized to a specific point and doesn't cover timed exclusivity the way you think it does.

“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.

“I don’t think it’s good for our industry if we got into a point where people are holding back the technical innovation of game developers based on a marketing deal. I don’t know anything about what’s in other people’s deals.

Sure context is key. And the important part is that MS have been doing, actually invented, what he says he isn't a big fun. And it is fun that he think a 30 day partial content timed exclusivity is worse than a full year of full exclusivity.

d21lewis said:
DonFerrari said:

We know that isn't how it happened. It was due to a very odd exclusivity claim made on E3 that people were questioning and even then they took a long time to confirm it was timed exclusivity.

Plus couple months or so after he said how much he hated timed exclusivity and the like.

That's exactly how it went. First it was spun at E3. When questioned he says it was timed exclusive. Unless there was a time he lied and I missed it, he came clean immediately when asked. I think was on Twitter as well but we can dig up the exact date it was announced and the exact date he said it wasn't exclusive, this being the internet and all. 

*Edit* did some googling. E3 was June 10-12 2014. 

This article was August 13, 2014

https://www.polygon.com/2014/8/13/5998285/microsoft-tomb-raider-xbox-exclusive-limited-time

Can't find the tweet where some guy asked if it was exclusive and Phil replied that it wasn't--mainly because there were so many people asking the same thing.

In any case, if you can show me an example between announcement date and the date of this article where Phil lied, I will concede that you F'd me in the A. If not, YOU  just got F'd in the A!!

As I said he didn't lie in tweet. The presentation of MS at E3 used the strange wording that got people discussing. Then SE couldn't clarify (due to contract). And later when pressed Phill said it was timed. You see that the link you gave is roughly 1 month after E3, which basically shows it wasn't immediately clear that it was timed.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

Context is key when reading text from someone especially during interviews.  Here is the text from Phil I believe you are referencing but I believe it doesn't mean what you believe it does.  Its contextualized to a specific point and doesn't cover timed exclusivity the way you think it does.

“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.

“I don’t think it’s good for our industry if we got into a point where people are holding back the technical innovation of game developers based on a marketing deal. I don’t know anything about what’s in other people’s deals.

Sure context is key. And the important part is that MS have been doing, actually invented, what he says he isn't a big fun. And it is fun that he think a 30 day partial content timed exclusivity is worse than a full year of full exclusivity.

d21lewis said:

That's exactly how it went. First it was spun at E3. When questioned he says it was timed exclusive. Unless there was a time he lied and I missed it, he came clean immediately when asked. I think was on Twitter as well but we can dig up the exact date it was announced and the exact date he said it wasn't exclusive, this being the internet and all. 

*Edit* did some googling. E3 was June 10-12 2014. 

This article was August 13, 2014

https://www.polygon.com/2014/8/13/5998285/microsoft-tomb-raider-xbox-exclusive-limited-time

Can't find the tweet where some guy asked if it was exclusive and Phil replied that it wasn't--mainly because there were so many people asking the same thing.

In any case, if you can show me an example between announcement date and the date of this article where Phil lied, I will concede that you F'd me in the A. If not, YOU  just got F'd in the A!!

As I said he didn't lie in tweet. The presentation of MS at E3 used the strange wording that got people discussing. Then SE couldn't clarify (due to contract). And later when pressed Phill said it was timed. You see that the link you gave is roughly 1 month after E3, which basically shows it wasn't immediately clear that it was timed.

So... You're saying no one gets "F'd in the A". 😢



mZuzek loves Smeags. 😢

d21lewis said:
DonFerrari said:

Sure context is key. And the important part is that MS have been doing, actually invented, what he says he isn't a big fun. And it is fun that he think a 30 day partial content timed exclusivity is worse than a full year of full exclusivity.

As I said he didn't lie in tweet. The presentation of MS at E3 used the strange wording that got people discussing. Then SE couldn't clarify (due to contract). And later when pressed Phill said it was timed. You see that the link you gave is roughly 1 month after E3, which basically shows it wasn't immediately clear that it was timed.

So... You're saying no one gets "F'd in the A". 😢

Do we need someone to be right or wrong so we can each other F'd in the A? Why?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said: 
Machiavellian said: 

Context is key when reading text from someone especially during interviews.  Here is the text from Phil I believe you are referencing but I believe it doesn't mean what you believe it does.  Its contextualized to a specific point and doesn't cover timed exclusivity the way you think it does.

“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.

“I don’t think it’s good for our industry if we got into a point where people are holding back the technical innovation of game developers based on a marketing deal. I don’t know anything about what’s in other people’s deals.


Sure context is key. And the important part is that MS have been doing, actually invented, what he says he isn't a big fun. And it is fun that he think a 30 day partial content timed exclusivity is worse than a full year of full exclusivity.

You are not reading the quote correctly.  He is stating that Yes, MS make marketing deals with developers/publishers but they never hold back any content in those deals or make such deals.  Yes, they will make time exclusive deals where they pay for a period of time where the game is exclusive to their system but never will they make a time exclusive where the developer/publisher will lock features or content from another system permanently.

My point is that people will take a statement like this and generalize it to fit their opinion but that is wrong.  That is a way for people to twist the context of a statement to make it fit an opinion instead of taking it exactly as it was phrased.  Even in your statement you appear to take that statement and conform it to your opinion instead of taking it as phrased and its only from a part of the interview which doesn't cover the complete context of the question asked.  This is the problem with the internet where people take pieces and parts of an answer and conform it to an opinion which most times isn't correct.

When you take a statement and try to conform it to your opinion, you first need to ask yourself are you really reading the statement or are you trying to make it conform to what you want to believe.  In order to make that statement conform to your opinion, you would need to make follow up questions to clarify your additional assessments.  Without doing that, you are just making an assumption on what you believe Phil is saying which isn't correct.

Last edited by Machiavellian - on 11 December 2019

Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said: 


Sure context is key. And the important part is that MS have been doing, actually invented, what he says he isn't a big fun. And it is fun that he think a 30 day partial content timed exclusivity is worse than a full year of full exclusivity.

You are not reading the quote correctly.  He is stating that Yes, MS make marketing deals with developers/publishers but they never hold back any content in those deals or make such deals.  Yes, they will make time exclusive deals where they pay for a period of time where the game is exclusive to their system but never will they make a time exclusive where the developer/publisher will lock features or content from another system permanently.

My point is that people will take a statement like this and generalize it to fit their opinion but that is wrong.  That is a way for people to twist the context of a statement to make it fit an opinion instead of taking it exactly as it was phrased.  Even in your statement you appear to take that statement and conform it to your opinion instead of taking it as phrased and its only from a part of the interview which doesn't cover the complete context of the question asked.  This is the problem with the internet where people take pieces and parts of an answer and conform it to an opinion which most times isn't correct.

When you take a statement and try to conform it to your opinion, you first need to ask yourself are you really reading the statement or are you trying to make it conform to what you want to believe.  In order to make that statement conform to your opinion, you would need to make follow up questions to clarify your additional assessments.  Without doing that, you are just making an assumption on what you believe Phil is saying which isn't correct.

Yes, let's pretend Phil didn't made that quote to try and attack Sony on a practice that is evolution of what they started and kept doing.

And again if you can't see that when he is publicly talking he is doing PR for Xbox then there is not much we can discuss. He is the public image of Xbox at the moment so anything he say related to gaming is taken as a statement from MS themselves over Xbox, so PR.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

You are not reading the quote correctly.  He is stating that Yes, MS make marketing deals with developers/publishers but they never hold back any content in those deals or make such deals.  Yes, they will make time exclusive deals where they pay for a period of time where the game is exclusive to their system but never will they make a time exclusive where the developer/publisher will lock features or content from another system permanently.

My point is that people will take a statement like this and generalize it to fit their opinion but that is wrong.  That is a way for people to twist the context of a statement to make it fit an opinion instead of taking it exactly as it was phrased.  Even in your statement you appear to take that statement and conform it to your opinion instead of taking it as phrased and its only from a part of the interview which doesn't cover the complete context of the question asked.  This is the problem with the internet where people take pieces and parts of an answer and conform it to an opinion which most times isn't correct.

When you take a statement and try to conform it to your opinion, you first need to ask yourself are you really reading the statement or are you trying to make it conform to what you want to believe.  In order to make that statement conform to your opinion, you would need to make follow up questions to clarify your additional assessments.  Without doing that, you are just making an assumption on what you believe Phil is saying which isn't correct.

Yes, let's pretend Phil didn't made that quote to try and attack Sony on a practice that is evolution of what they started and kept doing.

And again if you can't see that when he is publicly talking he is doing PR for Xbox then there is not much we can discuss. He is the public image of Xbox at the moment so anything he say related to gaming is taken as a statement from MS themselves over Xbox, so PR.

Who needs to pretend.  Did you actually read the whole interview.  Do you know the question that was asked and what he was answering.  In other words, you took a quote, without actually understanding the complete context or question asked and formed an opinion.  This is what I am talking about, and I see it all the time.  You state he is attacking Sony, or is he just giving his opinion on what he like and dislike based on the question asked.  You made a statement and formed an opinion that was different then what Phil actually said concerning a topic.  When the text did not line up with what you thought, you then massaged it to your opinion which is still not correct.  The thing is, Phil did not say what you stated and it still doesn't play with your opinion.

Let me ask you as question, what does PR actually means to you.  When Phil takes an interview and answer a question, how do you view his statements.  Is the weight of his answers whether correct or incorrect weigh more than lets say someone like Major Nelson.  So when you say his statements is PR, exactly what are you trying to say.  Of course any statements made are public relations, the question is the weight of those statements and who they come from.  Coming from someone who is doing QA in MS compared to the head of the division is totally different.



Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes, let's pretend Phil didn't made that quote to try and attack Sony on a practice that is evolution of what they started and kept doing.

And again if you can't see that when he is publicly talking he is doing PR for Xbox then there is not much we can discuss. He is the public image of Xbox at the moment so anything he say related to gaming is taken as a statement from MS themselves over Xbox, so PR.

Who needs to pretend.  Did you actually read the whole interview.  Do you know the question that was asked and what he was answering.  In other words, you took a quote, without actually understanding the complete context or question asked and formed an opinion.  This is what I am talking about, and I see it all the time.  You state he is attacking Sony, or is he just giving his opinion on what he like and dislike based on the question asked.  You made a statement and formed an opinion that was different then what Phil actually said concerning a topic.  When the text did not line up with what you thought, you then massaged it to your opinion which is still not correct.  The thing is, Phil did not say what you stated and it still doesn't play with your opinion.

Let me ask you as question, what does PR actually means to you.  When Phil takes an interview and answer a question, how do you view his statements.  Is the weight of his answers whether correct or incorrect weigh more than lets say someone like Major Nelson.  So when you say his statements is PR, exactly what are you trying to say.  Of course any statements made are public relations, the question is the weight of those statements and who they come from.  Coming from someone who is doing QA in MS compared to the head of the division is totally different.

Yes I read it and it was discussed to death on a dedicated thread at the time.

Regarding what is PR, what he says hold the most weight regarding Xbox except perhaps something said directly by Satya or official signed document from MS.

Since he is in the lead of the whole division what he put as his opinions and strategies are what theoretically he is steering the department or at least would like to. So it would be naive to think that something he says publicly, be it his tweeter or an interview, haven't been thought and constructed to serve his purposes at the leadership of Xbox. If something he said was wrongly taken or he confused himself (can happen) a formal communication stating that would be necessary.

It would be amateur on his part if he would talk things that would damage Xbox or is his internal thoughts that aren't related to how he wants Xbox to be seem.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Machiavellian said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes, let's pretend Phil didn't made that quote to try and attack Sony on a practice that is evolution of what they started and kept doing.

And again if you can't see that when he is publicly talking he is doing PR for Xbox then there is not much we can discuss. He is the public image of Xbox at the moment so anything he say related to gaming is taken as a statement from MS themselves over Xbox, so PR.

Who needs to pretend.  Did you actually read the whole interview.  Do you know the question that was asked and what he was answering.  In other words, you took a quote, without actually understanding the complete context or question asked and formed an opinion.  This is what I am talking about, and I see it all the time.  You state he is attacking Sony, or is he just giving his opinion on what he like and dislike based on the question asked.  You made a statement and formed an opinion that was different then what Phil actually said concerning a topic.  When the text did not line up with what you thought, you then massaged it to your opinion which is still not correct.  The thing is, Phil did not say what you stated and it still doesn't play with your opinion.

Let me ask you as question, what does PR actually means to you.  When Phil takes an interview and answer a question, how do you view his statements.  Is the weight of his answers whether correct or incorrect weigh more than lets say someone like Major Nelson.  So when you say his statements is PR, exactly what are you trying to say.  Of course any statements made are public relations, the question is the weight of those statements and who they come from.  Coming from someone who is doing QA in MS compared to the head of the division is totally different.

I've went down this rabbit hole before with him and others here and for the most part, no, they don't read the entire interview, or apply any context whatsoever to the answer, or the question itself. And anything that is read is only read through the rosiest of tinted glasses. From this angle it's very easy to accuse someone of spin or "lies" as is the most constant thing thrown around on this forum.



Control is the kind of game Remedy should be making for game pass. Perfect platform for them to tell their stories, since their games seem to be struggling with sales otherwise.