Update: Phil Spencer has been under a lot of fire by PlayStation fans ever since his tweet about marketing funds and today he responded to some of the criticism. When some ignorant YouTubers called him a hypocrite and asked what the deals for Rise of the Tomb Raider and Dead Rising 4 were, Spencer said “Us publishing 2 games, we were the publisher of both of these.” There’s a massive difference between what Sony does when they spend marketing funds to stop missions and other add-ons from going to Xbox One and Microsoft’s support of the development costs of games to the degree where they’re named the publisher.
Crystal Dynamics said on numerous occasions that Rise of the Tomb Raider would never have been made had it not been for Microsoft’s support. Microsoft provided free Azure servers and other benefits to Titanfall too. Microsoft has a history of supporting the development of third-party games and not limiting them due to who controls the franchise. Sunset Overdrive is a great example of this. Despite the fact that Insomniac Games wanted to keep the rights to Sunset Overdrive, Microsoft still supported the game and became the publisher. Spencer doesn’t go out of his way to stop missions and other content from going to Xbox One for another year like Sony did for Destiny. Maybe Don Mattrick engaged in such deals before Spencer took over but even that’s debatable. Microsoft pays for games to be developed, not have missions removed from other consoles.
Original: After the rather aggressive Xbox One S spot where the narrator quipped at how PlayStation Network is always down, Phil Spencer went on to clarify his vision for growth. And, as expected, he had a few choice words for the way Sony handles their business. Spencer said, “Paying marketing funds so another consoles base can’t play a piece of content doesn’t feel like growth.”
If you look at Xbox One’s marketing deals, Microsoft has never paid for any content to be intentionally kept off PlayStation 4. Sony on the other hand does this all the time. Just look at the various Assassin’s Creed games and Watch Dogs. I could go on and on for hours. The fact that Sony paid Activision to keep old content like Strikes off Xbox One for another year is beyond ridiculous. That goes past the purview of a traditional exclusivity agreement. Before I forget, look at Capcom’s Street Fighter 5. The game is struggling when it comes to sales but Sony just paid for another season so it won’t end up on Xbox One. A lot of indie games and the Injustice remaster top off that list.
I agree with Spencer, paying to keep content off a platform is quite a low move and isn’t the type of growth you want as a long-term strategy. Nor is it good for the industry or your image as a brand in the long run. You want people to buy games on your system because they see value on your system, not because they feel like they’re being manhandled by Sony. What’s hilarious is that Destiny still sold the best on Xbox One despite all of these odd keep-content-off-Xbox deals. I guess we all know what people think of Sony’s dishonorable strategy.
Phil Spencer also talked about other aspects of gaming like his love for the Xbox community and how he thought console gaming should grow. Be sure to take a look at this Twitter timeline for more information. Lastly, he also answered an important question pertaining to who decides which franchises get sequels and the like. For some odd reason a lot of people assume that it’s Satya Nadella who doesn’t understand franchises. Spencer clarified that and said that he was the one who made such decisions by saying, “I’ll never pull the “higher ups” thing. It’s on me, good and bad. MS has been great supporting Xbox.” I guess that puts the rumors to rest.
Whenever a sequel isn’t made you have to see it from the lens of someone running the Xbox division like Phil Spencer. If games like Quantum Break or Sunset Overdrive don’t get sequels is because they didn’t meet sales expectations or critical expectations. Quantum Break should’ve been a standalone story instead of trying to milk a franchise. Sunset Overdrive was more like an experiment. While it was a lot of fun, I don’t see it as being a franchise. I would rather have Microsoft invest in more meaningful stories along the lines of The Last of Us. I think Spencer realizes that too. Tough decisions like this need to be made and Phil is the one making them. What would you rather have? A Sunset Overdrive sequel or a game like The Last of Us from Microsoft? I would take the latter any day. That means using resources to forgo sequels and invest in more emotional franchises which Spencer hinted at doing on numerous occasions over the past year.
