Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is Phil Spencer a hypocrite?

Is he a businessman? Absolutely. Does that mean he lies or exaggerates at times? Of course. Does he have the best business model Xbox has had in ages? Definitely.



Around the Network

I said it before and I’ll say it again.
“People glorify him for his tweets because they need a PR champion after this horrendous hardware gen but in reality he's just a used car salesman in a suit, saying all the right things to get you to buy into his schtick. Rinse and repeat....new tweet....rinse and repeat.”



Hes turning xbox brand around so honestly I dont think he or xbox fans care. I certainly dont



REDZONE said:
Is water wet? 

By definition, technically it isn't. It makes other materials wet through a balance of cohesive and adhesive forces (and isn't even the best at making things wet). No, we don't need a new topic on that in here. :P 

Regarding Spencer, he's a PR person. No, I am not a big fan, but he does that job well. Issue he faces is documentation. That is, should he be wrong on anything (given the volume of interviews he takes part in), it will be picked to pieces by eagle-eyed forum/Twitter dwellers. Sometimes, saying less is more and he'd probably be better suited to absorbing that ideology. Then again, some of the things claimed in the OP aren't exactly Phil's own words, so he also faces misconceptions in addition to scrutiny and I am not a marketing guy. So he may be better at his job than any credit I could give him. 

As far as hypocrisy, I'd be willing to bet all of us have backtracked on things we've said, so in that regard, he's more human than alien.



                                                                                                             

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Is he a businessman? Absolutely. Does that mean he lies or exaggerates at times? Of course. Does he have the best business model Xbox has had in ages? Definitely.

I like Phil, like Nintendo who really abandoned the Home Console war with the Switch ( and has found success with it), I feel the Xbox executives feel that they also lost the conventional home console war to Sony.

It doesn't mean that they stopped trying to outdo them, the clearly crafted the most powerful next gen console, and have acquired plenty of studios ( though they haven't planned out yet). Their focus, however, is on Gamepass and xCloud, these services have/will make them money. These are services that they have done better than the competition and thus, like Nintendo in the portable space, Microsoft has something here in which it can win at, even if the conventional console war is lost.



Around the Network
Dulfite said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
Xbox started the tradition of locking online pay behind a paywall. When Sony and Nintendo both had free online, Microsoft continually marketed their paid online as superior to Sony's free online when it in fact wasn't. They did this so long that both Sony and Nintendo eventually decided to offer paid online.

But hey guys! Lack of Crossplay is pure evil, and MS is the good guys for implementing Crossplay, and is only looking out for the consumer, unlike that evil, evil Sony Corp!

Nintendo fanman here<<<

Wii internet was atrocious. Such a laggy mess. Wii U and Switch is maybe 50% better, but still laggy in games where it's really important to not have lag. I'm 1000% better at Smash Ultimate offline than I am online because of this. Xbox internet is far superior to Nintendo's and I haven't owned one still the 360 before Wii U came out.

Not certain about PS4, but I remember in the 360/PS3 days a lot of people would talk about better online experience on Xbox than PS3. PS3 was always getting online hacked and attacked and DDOS wasn't it?

I know Wii's online wasn't very good, and Switch's isn't good either. That's why I carefully worded my post to point out that only Sony's online was on par with Xbox 360's. 

SammyGiireal said:
Dulfite said:

Nintendo fanman here<<<

Wii internet was atrocious. Such a laggy mess. Wii U and Switch is maybe 50% better, but still laggy in games where it's really important to not have lag. I'm 1000% better at Smash Ultimate offline than I am online because of this. Xbox internet is far superior to Nintendo's and I haven't owned one still the 360 before Wii U came out.

Not certain about PS4, but I remember in the 360/PS3 days a lot of people would talk about better online experience on Xbox than PS3. PS3 was always getting online hacked and attacked and DDOS wasn't it?

Indeed the PS3 online experience was far below The Paid Microsoft's one.

As the Youtuber Dunkey has said "PS3 had Resistance 2 and 3 with 60+ players all on a single map seamlessly. For Free."



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Question to the Xbox fans here: Sony tends to put moneyhats, on 3rd party games to make sure they are timed exclusives on Sony consoles. Or in other words they put temporary moneyhats on 3rd party games. That's wrong right? But isn't MS outright buying 3rd party studios, and then not publishing those games on Sony systems, a sort of permanent moneyhat? Isn't that worse? Shouldn't Wasteland 3, and Psychonaughts 2, and all those other formerly 3rd party studios' games get the same treatment as Outer Worlds? 

Leynos said:

 X-band started the whole pay for an online thing on Genesis and SNES in the 90s. Then we had Dreamcast with Phantasy Star Online for the first console MMO and the first console built around being online. DC had SEGANET in the US and had a monthly sub fee. Paying for online play did not start with Xbox.

Right you are. I've no doubt that if MS wouldn't have stuck to paid online in the 360 era, there'd be no paid online for consoles today. At least not the kind that locks you out of playing online. 

At any rate though, it's still pretty hypocritical of Xbox to attempt to call Sony out for lack of Crossplay functionality on some games, when just a generation ago they were locking their online behind a paywall, on all games, when the competition wasn't. 

If MS was on the up and up, on "exclusives are evil", and "lack of crossplay is evil", they would publish their games on PS4/PS5, and discontinue their online paywall. Or at the very least they would try to get their games published on PS4. Sony might stop them, on some weird principle, or their might be technical issues with porting Xbox games to Sony consoles. 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Cerebralbore101 said:

Xbox started heavily influenced the tradition of locking online pay behind a paywall. When Sony and Nintendo both had free online, Microsoft continually marketed their paid online as superior to Sony's free online when it in fact wasn't. They did this so long that both Sony and Nintendo eventually decided to offer paid online.

But hey guys! Lack of Crossplay is pure evil, and MS is the good guys for implementing Crossplay, and is only looking out for the consumer, unlike that evil, evil Sony Corp!

What are you talking about, Xbox Live is far superior then PSN, everyone will tell that, even Sony diehard funs



The level of hate Spencer gets on this site proves how good a job he is doing. Heres hoping for many more years of frustrated pony tears everytime he takes a breath.

User was warned for this post - Hiku

Last edited by Hiku - on 27 July 2020

Libara said:
The level of hate Spencer gets on this site proves how good a job he is doing. Heres hoping for many more years of frustrated pony tears everytime he takes a breath.

I recommend you edit your post before you get reported