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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Phil Spencer: "Nintendo future exists off their own hardware"

Qwark said:
Shatts said:

VersusEvil said:

God I wish, I despise having to buy Nintendo’s hardware for the small handful of games I like from them.

I love how naive some people are here. If Microsoft were to acquire Nintendo, do you really think Nintendo would remain the same? Look at Rare, and all the things they screwed over. Obviously it's not just Microsoft, but that's why acquisitions are so dangerous. Acquisition might get the IP and infrastructure, but you won't get the talent. If people really think an acquisition of something at the level of Nintendo would be good for the industry, they are incredibly stupid. That was the whole debate with Activision Blizzard as well. What happened to all the anti-trust stuff that was discussed here with the FTC case. Fanboys are crazy fr. 

I would argue Bethesda is doing just fine under Microsoft. Starfield seems like a pretty big succes so far.

Starfield was in production for years so MS's impact in regard to Starfield is minimal, its what happens going forward that matters, MS bought Bethesda knowing their strengths and weaknesses, so as long as they facilitate those strengths and in turn look at remedying weaknesses like Bethesda's over reliance on a few key players like Todd Howard,by encouraging more mentoring delegation and giving the the creative staff more responsibility so you end up in a better position going forward, that along with further investment would then enable more games to be in various stages of production. so if they don't over interfere and  stick to just those type of decisions and let Bethesda do what it built its success on it will be fine.



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

Around the Network
mjk45 said:
Qwark said:

I would argue Bethesda is doing just fine under Microsoft. Starfield seems like a pretty big succes so far.

Starfield was in production for years so MS's impact in regard to Starfield is minimal, its what happens going forward that matters, MS bought Bethesda knowing their strengths and weaknesses, so as long as they facilitate those strengths and in turn look at remedying weaknesses like Bethesda's over reliance on a few key players like Todd Howard,by encouraging more mentoring delegation and giving the the creative staff more responsibility so you end up in a better position going forward, that along with further investment would then enable more games to be in various stages of production. so if they don't over interfere and  stick to just those type of decisions and let Bethesda do what it built its success on it will be fine.

I guess we should all just drop key devs from Nintendo and Sony too right?. If Todd's doesnt want to step aside why should he and who is MS to tell him to?.

This is like Saying if Miyamoto didnt want to hand Zelda or whatever over to some  else he should be forced to since a few fans feel say his next Zelda game wasnt what they wanted, but everyone else was loving it way more people than the few who is complaining on a gaming form.

Ms are doing a good thing by allowing their devs to do what they want under their own leadership like they always have had. When Ms used to step in in the past people used to complain look at rare. Now people are complaing since Ms are not stepping in more and getting rid of key stafff from their studios?. Imagine the back lash if ms got rid of Todd.



mjk45 said:
Qwark said:

I would argue Bethesda is doing just fine under Microsoft. Starfield seems like a pretty big succes so far.

Starfield was in production for years so MS's impact in regard to Starfield is minimal, its what happens going forward that matters, MS bought Bethesda knowing their strengths and weaknesses, so as long as they facilitate those strengths and in turn look at remedying weaknesses like Bethesda's over reliance on a few key players like Todd Howard,by encouraging more mentoring delegation and giving the the creative staff more responsibility so you end up in a better position going forward, that along with further investment would then enable more games to be in various stages of production. so if they don't over interfere and  stick to just those type of decisions and let Bethesda do what it built its success on it will be fine.

And if we give credit for Starfield to MS then also have to credit them with the failure of Redfall.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Leynos said:
mjk45 said:

Starfield was in production for years so MS's impact in regard to Starfield is minimal, its what happens going forward that matters, MS bought Bethesda knowing their strengths and weaknesses, so as long as they facilitate those strengths and in turn look at remedying weaknesses like Bethesda's over reliance on a few key players like Todd Howard,by encouraging more mentoring delegation and giving the the creative staff more responsibility so you end up in a better position going forward, that along with further investment would then enable more games to be in various stages of production. so if they don't over interfere and  stick to just those type of decisions and let Bethesda do what it built its success on it will be fine.

And if we give credit for Starfield to MS then also have to credit them with the failure of Redfall.

Yes we should. In both cases. MS didnt step in and Push Beth at all in both games to change or do anything. Beth gets to run itself but its success and failures still land on both Ms and Beth.



"Better Together" had a more literal meaning that anyone thought!

Nintendo will adapt and expand naturally in a way that Phil Spencer and other suits are incapable of envisioning. Xbox without Microsoft's endless cash reserves is an embarrassment. And Phil is just not nearly as perceptive or clever or kind as his children and worshippers appear to think he is. I honestly never hated the guy (Actually, he often comes across as likeable, and even sincere at times. As far as suits go anyway) but it's hard to ignore the numerous poor judgements and silly statements he made.

Microsoft can't help themselves. They're as monopolistic a company as they come. Quit consuming their "competition is good" BS. Them fuckers would be over the moon if Valve, Nintendo and Activision Blizzard go under their wing... and would throw a party if Sony goes out of business. Other corporations are probably not all that different but fortunately they have neither Microsoft's money nor ambition. So their threats aren't as serious or immediate.



Around the Network
zero129 said:
mjk45 said:

Starfield was in production for years so MS's impact in regard to Starfield is minimal, its what happens going forward that matters, MS bought Bethesda knowing their strengths and weaknesses, so as long as they facilitate those strengths and in turn look at remedying weaknesses like Bethesda's over reliance on a few key players like Todd Howard,by encouraging more mentoring delegation and giving the the creative staff more responsibility so you end up in a better position going forward, that along with further investment would then enable more games to be in various stages of production. so if they don't over interfere and  stick to just those type of decisions and let Bethesda do what it built its success on it will be fine.

I guess we should all just drop key devs from Nintendo and Sony too right?. If Todd's doesnt want to step aside why should he and who is MS to tell him to?.

This is like Saying if Miyamoto didnt want to hand Zelda or whatever over to some  else he should be forced to since a few fans feel say his next Zelda game wasnt what they wanted, but everyone else was loving it way more people than the few who is complaining on a gaming form.

Ms are doing a good thing by allowing their devs to do what they want under their own leadership like they always have had. When Ms used to step in in the past people used to complain look at rare. Now people are complaing since Ms are not stepping in more and getting rid of key stafff from their studios?. Imagine the back lash if ms got rid of Todd.

I'm not saying he should step aside but like Miyamoto there comes a time where you need to delegate mentor and groom successors,btw Zelda seems to be doing well and in Bethesda's case the over reliance on a few key people sees some of their prime IPs languishing and MS and Bethesda need to address that problem because at the end of the day it isn't good from a production pipeline or roi sense to have some of your biggest games sitting in a queue.   



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

Phil is something else man. lol



mjk45 said:
zero129 said:

I guess we should all just drop key devs from Nintendo and Sony too right?. If Todd's doesnt want to step aside why should he and who is MS to tell him to?.

This is like Saying if Miyamoto didnt want to hand Zelda or whatever over to some  else he should be forced to since a few fans feel say his next Zelda game wasnt what they wanted, but everyone else was loving it way more people than the few who is complaining on a gaming form.

Ms are doing a good thing by allowing their devs to do what they want under their own leadership like they always have had. When Ms used to step in in the past people used to complain look at rare. Now people are complaing since Ms are not stepping in more and getting rid of key stafff from their studios?. Imagine the back lash if ms got rid of Todd.

I'm not saying he should step aside but like Miyamoto there comes a time where you need to delegate mentor and groom successors,btw Zelda seems to be doing well and in Bethesda's case the over reliance on a few key people sees some of their prime IPs languishing and MS and Bethesda need to address that problem because at the end of the day it isn't good from a production pipeline or roi sense to have some of your biggest games sitting in a queue.   

So what do you think the backlash would be if MS made Todd step away?. To you you might think the quality is going down but for me Starfield is the best game Beth has made in years so its all subjective. Also we dont know if Todd isnt teaching someone to step in for him.

Edit i do agree with you that they should allow some others to work on some of the ips too. But like i said we also dont know if that will be the case its still early days.



Kyuu said:

"Better Together" had a more literal meaning that anyone thought!

Nintendo will adapt and expand naturally in a way that Phil Spencer and other suits are incapable of envisioning. Xbox without Microsoft's endless cash reserves is an embarrassment. And Phil is just not nearly as perceptive or clever or kind as his children and worshippers appear to think he is. I honestly never hated the guy (Actually, he often comes across as likeable, and even sincere at times. As far as suits go anyway) but it's hard to ignore the numerous poor judgements and silly statements he made.

Microsoft can't help themselves. They're as monopolistic a company as they come. Quit consuming their "competition is good" BS. Them fuckers would be over the moon if Valve, Nintendo and Activision Blizzard go under their wing... and would throw a party if Sony goes out of business. Other corporations are probably not all that different but fortunately they have neither Microsoft's money nor ambition. So their threats aren't as serious or immediate.

No one had the Money Sony had when they first entered too. I guess thats how the world works the is always bigger fish in the pond...



Remember, Phil is a long term thinker. This is key to understanding his thought process.

Career defining moments for him at MS, to make him a legend at MS, putting his name up their with Bill and Ballmer, at MS.

MS will end up owning everything and everyone eventually, we just all can't see it yet...

You will own nothing and you will be happy.