Xbox Boss Phil Spencer Won't Take Away from Sony to Achieve Success

Cough! "Rise of the Tomb Raider" Cough!

It's definitely true that companies are more collaborative than some people realise, like how Samsung make the screens (or something) for iPhones. But at the same time, if a company is in a worse position than their competitor, these kind of deals benefit them. You can't afford to play hard to get if no one wants you anyway. Not saying literally no one wants an Xbox, but they're the least desirable of the two at the moment.

Doesn't want to take away from Sony.... buys studios for exclusive game development....🤔🤔🤔

This is not a surprise!! Phil Spencer has been amongst the number of people praising Sony 1st Party games and has had criticism for actually playing Sony games too.

Maybe others before have been more competitive and doing what they can to gain an edge at the expense of Sony but Phil Spencer hasn't appeared to be that way inclined.

Buying up Studio's to increase their own output, essentially catch-up to Sony's portfolio of Studio's is only common sense. Much of Sony's portfolio were studio's that existed independently before being acquired by Sony - no different to what Microsoft has needed to do and done.

Still people will just wanna hate, hate, hate - regardless!!

Isn't that common sense? Both companies are out here trying to make money; they have families to feed — it seems a bit odd to wish for one company to fail, so the other can prevail.

You don't want one company to lead the market, that's how you end up with an irreversible monopoly (i.e. YouTube). Let them both win.

Yeah Xbox is doom next gen Under phil Spencer.

@BAMozzy such a forgetful memory you have. Of course Phil says the correct things, sometimes, because not saying those things will make things worse. And if you can't see the difference in his statement, and the difference between Sony and ms buying studios then and now....smh. pathetic.

@JoeBlogs exactly. The fan boyism here is stupid. You hit nail on head. Each try and see what people liked about the other and match it. Usually one step behind but it means each console offers more... BC on ps5 is only because of XB - Sony wanted to resell and offer BC through now to generate money - xb went a different approach one got great praise and massive use the other not so much.

Xb will get many more exclusives even though they for reasons i cannot work out moved away from that...

Win win.

I own xb, PS4 and switch and it’s a win win for me

Lol.... this guy man......

@GodGamer That deal was not put in place by Phil

Hes not answering genuine questions and instead pretends competition necessarily means trying to take out other brands.
Its just demagogic. Nobody really wants a brand to disapear. Or maybe some extremists want, but thats not what the questions were about. Later the guy even hesitates to use the word 'competition' in his questions

He should stick to finding people new houses with Kirstie Allsopp.

Because the deal is on microsoft level, not xbox level. I don’t think he has a say on what the azure team is doing.

@JoeBlogs
And thats exactly what Spencer should have said and talk about how positive competition can be instead of demonizing competition as a case of 'some people want the other to fail, not me' bs

Xbox just lost its head at the end of the last gen, shuttering up studios and the whole connect and no share nonsense. Phil Spencer has done a decent job of recovering Xbox over the last few years. For the first time ever I bought one, my One X is the goto for mutliplats since my Pro sounds like a jet engine. PS strength is its first party studios and it will take more than just buying up a few studios for Xbox to compete there. At the end of the last generation there was a lot of gloom around gaming and its future. Its very different now with game companies stock through the roof and everyone wanting to get in on the game. In the end it will mean more options and hopefully more high quality games to enjoy.

It's about Net Income not who sells the most consoles. There are millions of gamer's, across all platforms. Every one can win with out any ill wishes for others.

That's nice and all, but you can be competitive without aggressively taking games away from other platforms. Why is it that the Xbox One has been out for almost an entire console generation, yet has almost nothing in the way of worthwhile exclusives to show for it?

To be blunt: why would I buy an Xbox to play some games when I can buy Playstation and play all the games? I don't get their current strategy. If they don't want to regain some significant control of the total market share next gen with their hardware, why even make the hardware in the first place?

This isn't a fanboy thing. I was exclusively a 360 owner last gen and currently own all modern platforms... except the Xbone. I just genuinely don't understand how their current strategy isn't going to lead to them getting curb-stomped a second gen in a row.

@BAMozzy
Four people hate hate this comment but i guess they hate the truth

@Ralizah wanna talk about being blunt. Why should i dig out my ps3 or keep it plugged in to play last gen. When i simplely pop in a 360 disc wait for a update if theres one available and play.

I think the issue is that people can't see beyond the Xbox and PS brands and the way they operate compared to the way that Microsoft and Sony operates.

Microsofts ENTIRE business is centered around subcriptions, cloud initiatives and delivering SAAS. Sony's is not just about Playstation but lots of technology, hardware etc. Almost all massive multi-nationals both compete with each other on brands but also share on common elements where it makes business sense to do so. Someone mentioned Samsung making components for iPhones which is true. All the major UK insurers and underwriters share online technology.

Cloud gaming is the likely (hopefully distant) future. This is a big part of Microsoft's future and Sony need to get in on it. So you may find a situation that Sony and MS are competing for gaming on the cloud but Sony and MS working together to deliver it.

Fanboyism has no place in major business.

@JoeBlogs
Nope. He doesn't to hear about selling consoles. Ewww

@Stocksy I'm afraid you misunderstood how back compatibility works.

You put a legacy disc and your console plays it. This cost zero to the company and to the user.

Xbox one back compatibility is you put a legacy disc and the device downloads the compatible version that runs in an emulator. This comes with two costs for the company: one is to 'compile' the game download and test it and one is to pay licences as the old games can be played for "free" by legacy systems but you need to shell out a fee to play with an emulator. De facto, what MS did is to move / divert game budget to buy licences of legacy games. In simple words, with the overall cost of the licences of the old games MS would have covered a new game at least.

I personally prefer Sony's approach: give me HZD, GOW, Spider-man or DS instead of a bunch of old games.

@JoeBlogs To be honest, I don't think Microsoft care if Sony sell another 100m consoles and MS only sell 30-40m because Xbox in MUCH more than just the console. What MS will care about is ALL the Xbox users whether that is on console, on PC, on Mobile/tablets etc - they are ALL Xbox users, all Xbox Customers.

Of Course MS will still make a console for those that prefer to use a Console for their gaming. Much like MS make a Surface for all those that want a MS powered tablet and Surface Pro for those that prefer a laptop - both of which will also have Xbox too btw - they aren't the only choice though for running Windows 10 and all MS's other products - like office for example. Xbox is on every Win10 powered device and every Win10 customer is also a potential Xbox user. Streaming will add even more potential Xbox users enabling people to play their Xbox library on even more devices. Its users that MS care about, not how many consoles they sell as that is just 1 option MS has for its user base. They may have 30 or 40m Console users but may have 100m+ potential Xbox PC users and, with streaming making the 'power' irrelevant on devices, 100m+ Mobile/Tablet users - ALL Xbox customers, all Xbox gamers and that is far more important than how many consoles MS sell. Its all pretty much other party parts - like AMD for the APU Chip, Samsung for the RAM, Seagate for the HDD - not sure who supplies the 4k Bluray player but it isn't MS. They could even licence HP or Acer for example to make a Console and VR isn't necessarily going to be a headset by MS but maybe HP or Acer - if VR is going to come to Xbox at all in the near future.

Fanboys are looking at the consoles and trying to battle for supremacy over one another in sales, in performance, in games available etc etc but MS are looking at the bigger picture, how many potential Xbox users they can attract and on which device that best suits them, Sony are doing the same and so partnering with Xbox so they too can look at how many Playstation users they can reach on the devices that suit them - not just console but any device that has enough bandwidth to handle the streaming of games.

Phil's just always a good laugh.

@madcow78 I don't think you are aware of how Back Compatibility works either. Its not as simple as putting in a disc and it working, its much more complicated and does come at a cost.

Sony could build in a PS4 chipset so that games run exactly as they used to on PS4 - again adding to the cost to the customer which is included in the console pricing. They could do something like they did with the Pro which ran exactly like a PS4 for non-enhanced Pro games and then added Boost mode which turned up the CPU and GPU clockspeeds to 'Pro' level but still only ran half the GPU. Point is, PS4 was 'built' in or more that the Pro was 'expanded' by adding another half a GPU. Essentially, its built into the design of the Pro APU which could be the way Sony do BC with the PS5 - either way, these are mostly Hardware which may have 'costs' to them but that's included as part of the consoles price.

The other option is Emulation which is more a Software solution but not every game works perfectly - inc all the DLC. Emulation isn't 100% reliable with 100% of the games. I know MS do this for their OG and 360 BC games but also have a dedicated team that are checking each and every game they can, speaking to the 'owners' of the software to get permission. Some games can't be checked because of licensing or because the owners of the code are no longer working. Studio's have gone so can't be asked.

Its not just games but there are licenses for the music which may of expired too. It will be interesting to see what happens here and whether or not that limits the library of BC games. The BC programme on Xbox has finished - by that I mean that no more games will be added so only a quarter of the 360 library and just very small selection of OG Xbox games are actually are BC and that library will not increase anymore over the final year of the XB1 life as the leading Microsoft console.

Games are also built around the specs of the hardware and tuned to run on the exact clock speeds - hence Boost mode does have some games that behave differently than they should on Pro. As the generation has progressed though, we have seen more and more opting to use dynamic scaling and unlocked frame rates which may mean they are not 'tuned' to the specifics of the APU but more flexible to be improved with higher spec hardware. In fairness, its only a handful of games that don't work as expected with boost mode engaged and, as the Pro is nearly 3yrs old, Games may not be as 'tuned' to the specific hardware spec as there are a few multiple specs that the game will be running on.

It will be interesting to see exactly how Sony are planning to do this and to what degree - will it be ALL PS4 games, will the Pro Enhanced games be enhanced? will the standard PS4 games receive any boost as a lot use dynamic res scaling and unlocked frame rates that 'could' benefit from more processing power to help them run at their capped limits without dropping frames or resolution. There are a lot of questions yet to be fully answered so it will be interesting to see how they do go about it.

@madcow78 I understand it fine. You don’t understand. It’s far more complicated than you have made out anyway BC for Xbox was a massive project....but because Xbox did that and the feedback it got Sony has looked long and hard and seen it’s the way to go and Xbox looked at Sony exclusives and realised they need to invest more in that and the overall all is owners of consoles get more choice and better features. Who doesn’t want BC - even if XB way wasn’t perfect it was still awesome.

I’d imagine Sony will raise the bar like the often do. Win win

@BAMozzy agree with all that. It’ll be interesting indeed to see what it ends up looking like but for me it’s a massive deal

@Stocksy For me, its not overly important - at least NOT if the games run EXACTLY the same as they do on PS4 (or even the Pro versions). If they run at the max capped limit - whether that's capped to 1080 or 30fps or 4k and 60fps, as long as the more powerful hardware eliminates any drop in frame rate or resolution, I may be interested in playing a few of the games that I haven't played or finished - but I doubt I will play very many of my games again just because I can.

I will still keep my Pro (and still have my OG PS4 too) so I will not have any issue with playing ANY of my games regardless of any BC. I still have both my PS3 and XB360 too so I have NO issue with playing games from that era either. Despite that, the last time I turned on either of these must be around 5 or 6 yrs ago.

@JoeBlogs I bet they would be OK with a lot less as Consoles themselves are not very profitable but selling games - especially to a much greater user base thanks to Win10 devices and streaming capabilities to any screen with a decent bandwidth to handle it.

Consoles are not what makes the money - its all the services and game sales. Console numbers are important if that is the only device that you can sell games to - its the user base though that matters most to both Sony and MS but in the past, the only user base they had was similar to the number of consoles. Not all consoles are 'users' of course as some may have more than 1 (like I do) and there are quite a lot in used stores - but the most important is the user base and both Sony and MS are looking outside of just the console with streaming options to increase the number of compatible devices that add to the user base and most importantly, more potential game sales!

all this is what the losing side do MS would be the complete opposite if they had Sonys success must be hard for them to act like they are because the 360 era they did not give a crap about anything.

@BAMozzy
I disagree there. Even if Spencer says he doesn't care, consoles sold are very important. Not only for them, but most of all for us gamers who play on consoles.

@JJ2 Only for fanboys to brag about the numbers of consoles sold. For MS, its far more important o have active users of Xbox - whether that's on console or other devices. The more devices,, the more potential users and therefore the more potential buyers of games, of services etc from MS and thus making them happier than only selling to a small portion of those gamers who prefer a console. MS have a massive market with huge user base - maybe a small percentage are gamers but they still have a massive potential market - far more than Sony currently does with the PS4 because EVERY Windows 10 device is also an Xbox.

@BAMozzy
1 I think gamers in forums etc should stop saying fanboys this, fanboys that.. it s not healthy conversation, even cringey....
2 at some point if selling consoles becomes futile, then I'd be worried for my hobby. I love playing on consoles. It's not always about this or that companies but more about gamers interests
So yea , I find it important that they care about selling consoles and I'm no boy

@JJ2 1: I think you are missing the point - Only fanboys will care about which console has the biggest number of sales as that is something to brag about - MS certainly won't because its all about active users and their ability to reach as many people as possible through any compatible device - and that includes devices that can handle the bandwidth for streaming.

2: No-one said consoles were going to disappear. Its still a valid device and the preferential device for a LOT of gamers. The point about Console numbers wasn't to say that MS were not planning on offering a Console for all those people that want to game on a Console, but that there will be a LOT more other options for people to play their Xbox games. That could mean that some will still want the console for home use but pull out their mobile device to play their Xbox library via streaming or maybe some only want to game on PC or just console whilst others may be happy to just play games via streaming using Xbox Game Pass games. Point is though that instead of only playing Xbox via a console, People can play on multiple devices and take their Xbox library on the go. If you want, a type of 'Switch' arrangement where the games you play on your home console/PC can be streamed to your mobile Phone or Tablet and played on the go. Sony no doubt will do something similar - hence the partnership with Microsoft - but unlike MS, they probably won't have PC owners as part of their user base (they might if they bring their streaming option to PC's) but MS's userbase is effectively every Windows 10 device of which the Xbox console(s) are as well. If MS only sell 30-40m xboxes next Gen too, they won't care too much because they could have 100m+ Xbox user base because of their PC and streaming devices. Sony may 'need' to sell more consoles because they don't have the PC user base that MS have.

An MS exclusive for example could be bought by any Xbox console owner, any windows 10 PC owner, maybe streamed to every 4/5G mobile phone user. A lot of these may take up the option of Game Pass too so give MS a massive monthly pay check. I don't know how they (or Sony) will go about their Streaming service - whether its included in Gold/PS+ or Game Pass for example - maybe have a tier above that allows console gamers to play their digital library on the go with streaming.

Anyway, the point wasn't that consoles don't matter and therefore will disappear - it was that Consoles are only 1 device that many people may prefer but what's most important to MS is the number of people that are using 'Xbox' across any/all the potential devices. If I buy a Console, I am just 1 person and no more important than the person who opts to buy their Xbox game on PC, or the person that opts to buy a game to stream to their mobile - we are all Xbox users and all a potential to sell their products to which is more important than how many console they sell.

@BAMozzy
'Only fanboys will care about which console has the biggest number of sales '
No , I dont think the many gamers who like being informed are 'fanboys". I dont call people 'fanboy' anyway.

@RustyBullet Yes it was as he is the one who announced it after he got promoted.

Spencer knows he has lost. Xbox is defeated. Nintendo Switch is the first successful Hybrid console/portable and PS5 is looking to be an even better PS4 having both traditional gaming and VR.

Xbone has... some backwards compatibility.

And while Sony and Nintendo remain popular almost everywhere and are only growing, Xbox has been laughed out of Japan.

And do we know anything about Xbox Scarlett yet? Microsoft is better off focusing on PC and going back to being a software company.

Quote of the year this... "What are you doing helping them?"

It's kind of the xbox division helping Sony out after the PS4 really struggled this generation while the xbox one eclipsed it in sales, gaming experience and 720p as standard. 😂

@Cutmastavictory Bit Sony have done the same so there both as bad

Microsoft haven't been competitive since 360 the start of it anyway when they unfortunately rushed out the console to get a lead on PS3 and it back fired with Red Ring of Death. Since X1 they haven't done anything for there fan base as all no Xbox fan wanted TV at all they wanted a games machine.

@thefirst indeed history days otherwise. Microsoft are the kings of scumbag marketing.

Back on the PS3 era, all the talk of Sony being arrogant after PS2 was deliberately engineered by Microsoft shill AstroTurf army of paid shills, fooling gullible teenage gamers that Sony were too big for their boots and you should buy the inferior and more expensive Xbox with the poor game line up just to show Sony a lesson...

@BAMozzy mate, I wrote in laymen terms how back compatibility works. In the short passage of the old testament you wrote I couldn't find anything different from what I said. If I'm wrong, please, quote what I wrote and tell me why is not correct.

However, my point was to tell Xbox One isn't back compatible as it comes at cost of MS budget for marketing and games as it runs thanks to an emulator. MS did divert budget to allow running some games. Point. Do you think that's not the case?

That's it, I am against the idea that is simple switch to trigger that doesn't cost a penny to the manufacturer. Emulation doesn't equate to back compatibility and it require a renew of licencing. Even first party games could be affected by licencing issues as you don't know if a part of the development - e.g. translation - has been done by external agency with a contract that mention one system only.

@Stocksy I do not think MS had / has any real project behind the back compatibility program rather than "it costs less than developing new games like SO that our base won't buy as they aren't Halo, Gear or Forza"

@madcow78 Maybe I misunderstood the intention of your statement about putting in a legacy disc and it just working at NO cost - either to the Manufacturer (by having to build in a legacy system) or by having a team to ensure that discs work as expected - whether that is from the disc or, as is the case with XB1, by downloading the Digital version and running some 'emulation'.

Consoles are not PC's and games are not licenced to a specific hardware - like console games are. Whether your PC was built in 1998 or 2018 - its still a PC and, when older games don't work as expected, you can often find drivers etc that make them work. Sony built in a PS2 chipset into the original PS3 - that was one of the main reasons it cost so much more at launch. With the Slim, they took it out and reasoned that BC was only important for the first year or so until enough games released to start building up a new library. Obviously, the PS4 did incredibly well without BC and the only time it seemed to matter most was after MS added partial (as in selected titles) BC to the XB1 and now its become an 'essential' feature. Like I said, it hasn't impacted on Sony's PS4 which has continuously outsold the XB1 month after month, not closing the gap eve with some BC.

I doubt that people would refuse to buy a PS5 if they had limited or even no BC. The desire to play the new games rather than miss out would be overcome - regardless of how much they moan about it. Its missing out on a feature the other offers, maybe even doing a better job of it that matters mire than the feature itself. Its like those that opt to list games like Nioh, Gravity Rush 2 etc in arguments about Exclusives but the only exclusives they actually bought were titles like Uncharted and Last of us. The sales of some games being 1 in over 80 actually bought.

Each to their own but I do wonder if people actually want some things to actually use on a day to day basis or actually want because the other has, something to argue about - One lot arguing that they have VR for example and the other about BC but statistically, few actually use either as a percentage of gamers on either platform. 2-3m VR headsets sold with nearly 100m consoles - that's around 3% actually have access to VR and maybe a similar percentage on Xbox actually play BC games regularly too..

Anyway, it seems I misunderstood because there is always a cost and that cost maybe passed on to the customer in other ways - even if its not at time of purchasing the console, game sales, subscriptions etc all bring in revenue which can offset ongoing costs to the manufacturer. Game Pass for example could offset some of the costs for BC as it has 360 generation titles in it as does Gold subscriptions too.

@JJ2 that is ridiculous if MS thought hardware was not important they would not waste millions in RD & make it there would be no point!! & these only fanboys care about sales is the oddest thing I have heard?

sounds like something an Xbox user would say to mask failings & twist around to only fanboys care about sales which make 0 sense to me. guarantee investors care a lot.

@GodGamer I think you will find that deal was already in place before Phil took over.

@David187
Just for fun, in the Spencer interview :
Q. When did xbox start being profitable?
Spencer: I dont remember
Q. I only ask because people ask that question
Spencer: we dont see it as maximising profitability. We focus on growing potatoes..

Funnily I only added potatoes at the end. The rest is real . I have no idea what they are trying to have people smoke tbh haha

@JJ2 😂 all he is doing is dodging the question because the answer would show they have lost there way. 🥔🥔🥔

@JJ2 it's common knowledge in the industry that Xbox has never made Microsoft a single some, when you add in R&D costs and RROD lawsuits.

Every time a new Xbox is announced its a miracle senior Microsoft honchos let it happen, as it's a huge moneypit for them.

I predict no Xbow Two (or whatever it's called), and Microsoft just give up and focus on their profitable areas, Azure (and that's it...)

Reading this article is amusing, since Elder Scrolls 6 has been taken away from Playstation. I guess that makes Phil a little bit of a liar, doesn't it?