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

Forums - Microsoft - Phil Spencer and Sarah Bond Retiring. AI Leadership Replacing Him.

HoloDust said:

Hm...maybe now they will buy Roblox (few years ago they were on MS' list, IIRC), cause it seems that's what they're interested in, XBOX on everything and younger generations and given they are loosing their battle vs Valve, that wold be their best bet.

Well MS supports Iran genocide of Palastine and AI farms and Bill Gates is on the Epstien list. Why not buy the Pedo infested game.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network
ST.Tachyon said:
firebush03 said:

Question: How do we know it was Phil Spencer who was responsible for Xbox's collapse? How do we know this wasn't Microsoft making demands that Phil tried to make the best of? For instance, how do we know it wasn't the higher-ups at Microsoft who called for Phil to enforce a pivot from first-party exclusivity to third-party? (Which, I would argue, was the main reason Xbox fell apart at all— had Cuphead released multiplatform day one, for instance, would their Holiday 2017 figures had been nearly as strong? Ofc the Pro model is what really drove sales, but the cherry on top of having one of the hottest apps exclusive to their platform really could've made a big difference.)

Because he is head of XBOX. Its his say when it comes to console specifications, games that are canceled or green lit and where these games will be released.

MS couldnt care less for XBOX since XBOX division doesnt even count for 5% of all money MS earn, even during their best years.

Well if Nadella tells Spencer that that the blue line needs to point up (growth) at the end of the fiscal year to make investors happy, and the $68.7 billion they spent on Activision Blizzard is putting them in the negative, while Phill may decide which studio gets shut etc, it's a pick your poison situation for him.
That aquisition was made by Microsoft. Not Xbox's division. And it's not far off from Microsofts entire net income of 2024.
So it affects Microsoft's bottom line directly.

Ideally it's a long term investment that will pay off for itself years down the line, but we live in a world where investors demand growth every single year, even if there is no growth to be had. So they artificially create it by firing employees, closing studios, and cancelling games, etc.

And even if those 68 Billion were on the Xbox division's books, I don't think it makes a difference, as Nadella would demand growth there as well. Although it would be impossible to make cuts to make up for that sum for Xbox, so that may be another reason for why it's on Microsofts books.

Around the time of Tango Gamework's closure, Jason Schreier reported from some Xbox/Microsoft employees that stated that Xbox is now pretty much majorly run by Nadella. At least the major decisions are, and then Phill decides how to get there.

Last edited by Hiku - 8 hours ago

Leynos said:

Can't be saved anymore.  No use removing one tumor when the entire body is riddled with terminal cancer. Too little too late. Should have been removed in 2013. New boss says some PR shit but we know they will do the opposite. 

Did you mean he should have been removed in 2023? Don Mattrick was still in charge of the Xbox division in 2013; Spencer didn't take over until the following year.



Hiku said:
ST.Tachyon said:

Because he is head of XBOX. Its his say when it comes to console specifications, games that are canceled or green lit and where these games will be released.

MS couldnt care less for XBOX since XBOX division doesnt even count for 5% of all money MS earn, even during their best years.

Well if Nadella tells Spencer that that the blue line needs to point up (growth) at the end of the fiscal year to make investors happy, and the $68.7 billion they spent on Activision Blizzard is putting them in the negative, while Phill may decide which studio gets shut etc, it's a pick your poison situation for him.
That aquisition was made by Microsoft. Not Xbox's division. And it's not far off from Microsofts entire net income of 2024.
So it affects Microsoft's bottom line directly.

Ideally it's a long term investment that will pay off for itself years down the line, but we live in a world where investors demand growth every single year, even if there is no growth to be had. So they artificially create it by firing employees, closing studios, and cancelling games, etc.

And even if those 68 Billion were on the Xbox division's books, I don't think it makes a difference, as Nadella would demand growth there as well. Although it would be impossible to make cuts to make up for that sum for Xbox, so that may be another reason for why it's on Microsofts books.

Around the time of Tango Gamework's closure, Jason Schreier reported from some Xbox/Microsoft employees that stated that Xbox is now pretty much majorly run by Nadella. At least the major decisions are, and then Phill decides how to get there.

I love how back in 2019 multiple users, including mods and site staff ardently defended Microsoft's acquisitions trying to compare a 100 billion purchase of major multiplatform titles to Sony or Nintendo's small-time purchases of long term 2nd party partners. Sony buying Insomniac, Santa Monica, etc. is nowhere near the same as MS buying Actiblizz and Bethesda, etc. And during that whole time I constantly claimed that it wasn't financially making money no matter what MS's books said. Now, 7 years later the writing is on the wall and those users, mods, and site staff are curiously absent from these forums. Hilarious. 



Cerebralbore101 said:
Hiku said:

Well if Nadella tells Spencer that that the blue line needs to point up (growth) at the end of the fiscal year to make investors happy, and the $68.7 billion they spent on Activision Blizzard is putting them in the negative, while Phill may decide which studio gets shut etc, it's a pick your poison situation for him.
That aquisition was made by Microsoft. Not Xbox's division. And it's not far off from Microsofts entire net income of 2024.
So it affects Microsoft's bottom line directly.

Ideally it's a long term investment that will pay off for itself years down the line, but we live in a world where investors demand growth every single year, even if there is no growth to be had. So they artificially create it by firing employees, closing studios, and cancelling games, etc.

And even if those 68 Billion were on the Xbox division's books, I don't think it makes a difference, as Nadella would demand growth there as well. Although it would be impossible to make cuts to make up for that sum for Xbox, so that may be another reason for why it's on Microsofts books.

Around the time of Tango Gamework's closure, Jason Schreier reported from some Xbox/Microsoft employees that stated that Xbox is now pretty much majorly run by Nadella. At least the major decisions are, and then Phill decides how to get there.

I love how back in 2019 multiple users, including mods and site staff ardently defended Microsoft's acquisitions trying to compare a 100 billion purchase of major multiplatform titles to Sony or Nintendo's small-time purchases of long term 2nd party partners. Sony buying Insomniac, Santa Monica, etc. is nowhere near the same as MS buying Actiblizz and Bethesda, etc. And during that whole time I constantly claimed that it wasn't financially making money no matter what MS's books said. Now, 7 years later the writing is on the wall and those users, mods, and site staff are curiously absent from these forums. Hilarious. 

While the MS acquisitions were indeed a shitshow, Sony didn't just  do "small-time purchases of long term second party partners", they also bought up some significant studios only to shut them down or lay off a lot of the staff. (Firewalk, Neon Koi, Bluepoint, Bungie, Firesprite)



Around the Network
curl-6 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

I love how back in 2019 multiple users, including mods and site staff ardently defended Microsoft's acquisitions trying to compare a 100 billion purchase of major multiplatform titles to Sony or Nintendo's small-time purchases of long term 2nd party partners. Sony buying Insomniac, Santa Monica, etc. is nowhere near the same as MS buying Actiblizz and Bethesda, etc. And during that whole time I constantly claimed that it wasn't financially making money no matter what MS's books said. Now, 7 years later the writing is on the wall and those users, mods, and site staff are curiously absent from these forums. Hilarious. 

While the MS acquisitions were indeed a shitshow, Sony didn't just  do "small-time purchases of long term second party partners", they also bought up some significant studios only to shut them down or lay off a lot of the staff. (Firewalk, Neon Koi, Bluepoint, Bungie, Firesprite)

Bungie was 3.6 billion and made one game franchise. Actiblizz was 70 billion and made multiple game franchises. Still an apples to oranges comparison, which MS defenders ignored. What did the other studios make or do? Honestly, I only recognize Bluepoint for the ports and remasters. 



Cerebralbore101 said:
curl-6 said:

While the MS acquisitions were indeed a shitshow, Sony didn't just  do "small-time purchases of long term second party partners", they also bought up some significant studios only to shut them down or lay off a lot of the staff. (Firewalk, Neon Koi, Bluepoint, Bungie, Firesprite)

Bungie was 3.6 billion and made one game franchise. Actiblizz was 70 billion and made multiple game franchises. Still an apples to oranges comparison, which MS defenders ignored. What did the other studios make or do? Honestly, I only recognize Bluepoint for the ports and remasters. 

Bungie for instance is still a sizeable purchase, not small time. 

Neon Koi was working on one of Sony's aborted AAA live service titles and was put to the torch, Firewalk made Concord, and Firesprite most recently worked on Horizon Call of the Mountain.

I'm not defending the MS acquisitions, they've been a disaster, but Sony shouldn't get a free pass either.



curl-6 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Bungie was 3.6 billion and made one game franchise. Actiblizz was 70 billion and made multiple game franchises. Still an apples to oranges comparison, which MS defenders ignored. What did the other studios make or do? Honestly, I only recognize Bluepoint for the ports and remasters. 

Bungie for instance is still a sizeable purchase, not small time. 

Neon Koi was working on one of Sony's aborted AAA live service titles and was put to the torch, Firewalk made Concord, and Firesprite most recently worked on Horizon Call of the Mountain.

I'm not defending the MS acquisitions, they've been a disaster, but Sony shouldn't get a free pass either.

Well then I'll agree that those studios were handled terribly. I hate Sony's recent live-service push. Especially because they keep putting their 1st party games on PC with the excuse that "these games cost more to make". Yeah, let me just make my kids get a part-time job, because I like to light my cigs with $100 bills. =/

People give Nintendo a lot of flak but at least they fully support and believe in their consoles and employees. MP4 would have been Vaporware if done by any other company. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - 4 hours ago

curl-6 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Bungie was 3.6 billion and made one game franchise. Actiblizz was 70 billion and made multiple game franchises. Still an apples to oranges comparison, which MS defenders ignored. What did the other studios make or do? Honestly, I only recognize Bluepoint for the ports and remasters. 

Bungie for instance is still a sizeable purchase, not small time. 

Neon Koi was working on one of Sony's aborted AAA live service titles and was put to the torch, Firewalk made Concord, and Firesprite most recently worked on Horizon Call of the Mountain.

I'm not defending the MS acquisitions, they've been a disaster, but Sony shouldn't get a free pass either.

As you are pointing yourself, aside from Bungie they are not even remotedly comparable. All of them but Bungie were already long time partners known to working with Sony or smaller/new studios Sony was funding their IP.

Activision Blizzard and Bethesda were massive companies that have always had developed insanely famous multiplatform games. It doesn't grant any kind of comparision to be honest.



BraLoD said:
curl-6 said:

Bungie for instance is still a sizeable purchase, not small time. 

Neon Koi was working on one of Sony's aborted AAA live service titles and was put to the torch, Firewalk made Concord, and Firesprite most recently worked on Horizon Call of the Mountain.

I'm not defending the MS acquisitions, they've been a disaster, but Sony shouldn't get a free pass either.

As you are pointing yourself, aside from Bungie they are not even remotedly comparable. All of them but Bungie were already long time partners known to working with Sony or smaller/new studios Sony was funding their IP.

Activision Blizzard and Bethesda were massive companies that have always had developed insanely famous multiplatform games. It doesn't grant any kind of comparision to be honest.

Bungie was a big multiplatform dev worth billions. Not as big as Activision, but to categorise Sony's purchases as small time or harmless is inaccurate.