Xbox Boss Explains Microsoft's Struggles With Game Quality This Generation

I did not say that in bold. I've stated multiple times, including in responses to you, that MS acquiring new studios was a good thing. You've clearly made that up.

Again you mentioned Sony, not I. But since you want to compare.

• Ghosts of Tsushima
• Days Gone
• Driveclub
• Knack
• The Order 1886 (co-developed with Santa Monica)
• The Tomorrow Children
• Drawn to Death (co-developed with SIE San Diego)
• Dreams
• The Last Guardian

And that doesn't count a few first party VR titles like RIGS and Blood and Truth.

Shoot even Nintendo has done better:

• Splatoon
• 1-2-Switch
• Arms
• Labo
• Labo VR

MS hasn't risked as much as Sony or Nintendo and I really don't get where you're getting that it has. Again, and I need you to follow me on this one, Phil Spencer himself said they need to take more risks with their first party devs and more devs will allow them to do that. All their first party devs have been doing all gen are Halo, Forza, and Gears. Rare finally got to do something other than Kinect titles with Sea of Thieves, but that's really it.

Also what? Who's arguing for more of the same? I'm literally applauding Phil for doing the exact opposite. I swear it's like you're arguing with someone else.

Recore was another game they funded. It was made by a Japanse dev they don't own.

"You even went as far as saying they should create instead of acquiring despite" The bold you were referring to.

"Their strategy is to acquire instead of create..." Your quote, which you are now claiming I made up aka putting words in your mouth.

I mentioned Sony simply because of the statement above. You called them out for acquiring instead of creating when many of its competitors top games are from acquired studios. So, its an odd criticism to make and now you side tracking from the initial point of the original discourse.

As per your initial statement to which started this back and fort "For a while, they were coming up with interesting IPs like Gears, Fable, Forza, and Sunset Overdrive. But outside of those and Halo, there really isn't much." which again included many third party games that were funded by MS as your initial comparison; prior to moving the goal post to 1st party only, MS have invested in several new IPs, Ryse, Sunset Overdrive (you mentioned), Ori and the Blind Forest, Recore, Quantum Break and Sea of Thieves. That was prior to the several acquisitions of newer studios. Now we have Bleeding Edge added to the list of new IPs and most likely many more from the many studios they have acquired. But according to you "Their strategy is to acquire instead of create" as if the new studios would not be creating new IPs. Again, the start of this discourse to which I correctly responded to was the "interesting IPs like Gears, Fable, Forza, and Sunset Overdrive." Now you are trying to pass of your mistake as a mistake on my end.

Here's the whole quote:

"Ok so I was mistaken about those games, I'll admit that. However, that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft doesn't take enough risks. Their strategy is to acquire instead of create which is why they're games aren't as good. Sea of Thieves, for example, is their best attempt at a new IP and look at how that went. Like I said earlier, I'm glad he's doing something about it by signing on more studios. I just hope that they're making cool new IPs and note put on spinoffs or extensions of current IPs like Horizon."

Perhaps I should have said that was their strategy since they're now shifting away from acquiring IPs to making them. But if you read that last line you'd understand that this is what I meant. And even if, you still misinterpreted my statement as I didn't they should create instead ofacquire, evidenced again by my last sentence in that quote. So yeah you're kind of putting words in my mouth.

You're still ignoring the rest of the argument and hanging onto my mistake of including 3rd party titles in a first party list, but you conveniently ignore that it was supposed to be a first party list, not a third party list. So surprisingly only helps my argument that MS first party hasn't made a new IP outside of Sea of Thieves. because that list of 4 or 5 games got cut down to 1. No goal post move. You going to man up to your mistake of saying HZD was the only new first party IP from Sony this gen? Because that was patently false and once again, proves my point that MS hasn't been putting out any new IPs like Sony.

And if we're going the funded route, which I never claimed to, then that list for Sony takes off with titles like Bloodborne, etc.

Still no list from you. You can't name at least one more? Sea of Thieves, I'll give you Bleeding Edge out of pity, and just one more and MS could be two short of Nintendo.

I've never claimed, nor am I trying to claim the mistake as yours. However, you insist on reading it as a goal post move which it clearly wasn't and are misinterpreting what I'm saying.

Xbox tactics of quantity over quality works well in 360 early year anyhow. Still remembers that mass effect 1, blue dragon, lost odyssey, naruto all on 360.

Whatever xbox does we profit either way, all their game is on pc so there is zero reason to talk about xbox as hardware.

Lets not be silly. I literally quoted you stating what you said you didn't state. Its literally right there.

Again, you making a mistake in your listing is NOT an error on my part. You listing third party games then arguing after the fact that they are first party then retracting are all errors on your end. As I have stated many times before you went on your sidetrack, I took issue with that statement.

My argument to your initial statement has nothing to do with responding to your list request (because you are the one incorrectly listing originally third party games as "interesting IPs") and even now you are acting as if Bleed Edge is not a first party game because surprise! it doesn't fit your agenda.

You made a mistake and now you are trying to steer the discussion away from that mistake when that mistake was the entirety of the discourse because you are in "I must save face mode because I am embarrassed". :)

That's what I said. Second Party 'Developer' not game. A game made by second party developer is still a first party game as it's owned by the platform holder.

Quote me saying "they should create instead of acquiring" I'd like to see where I gave MS the advice of doing what they're currently were doing before they bought those devs. Still waiting on that list.

Funny how you claim I have an axe to grind and you're all over my one comment about MS needing to take more first party risks, a claim Phil agrees with. But you didn't say a peep to me in the other thread about that hardware architect leaving MS. I guess we're good unless I say anything critical of MS? So what does that make you?

Look it's clear you're not interested in a debate. You're trying your best to paint me a certain way while ignoring everything I'm saying so you can have the last word if you'd like.

I see what you're saying. So if this is the case, then my original statement still stands since MS has only been focused on those titles.

Seems like you are trying really hard to deviate from my initial call out. I was and still not interested in anything else even your list request because I called you out on a specific issue, you stating "For a while, they were coming up with interesting IPs like Gears, Fable, Forza, and Sunset Overdrive. But outside of those and Halo, there really isn't much. They need to be creative and risky." There was no mentioned of first party only and I responded to the above in the same non first party context. It is not my fault you didn't know the nature of the games you listed. It is also not my fault you changed goalpost when you realize your mistake. Its OK, it happens.

So to recap, you talked about games you were ignorant on. Talked about MS IP development in the past as favorable which it was not (I know the common thing is to talk about the 360 as a bastion MS creativity which just wasn't). Realize your error but still try to argue because you maybe embarrassed. Now you are complaining about not responding to your comment in some other thread. As if I supposed to be stalking your comments.

Actually, this was your initial call out but you said it without reading the article. Should I dedicate the rest of my posts to how you messed up here and didn't own up to it? Because I at least owned up to mine and still had valid points backed up by Phil. You have nothing but conspiracy theories.

I'd also like to see you respond to PC_Rocks response to me about first party titles. Should be interesting.

Now my comment still stands because the quote in the OP doesn't back your conclusion. Another mistake on your end. :)

And you are trying really hard to "win" one aren't you? I decide what I engage, not you. :)

lol wut?

I can agree this has been Microsofts biggest weakness and the reason Sony/Nintendo is killing it right now.

@Pedro: Yes because games like Sea of Thieves and Quantum Break isn't risky and games like Ori and Recore isn't new or creative. Bleeding Edge isn't both. Can you all simply stop pretending as if you are objective?”

I said that also. Risks have been taken they just didn’t light it up critically. But take Sea of Thieves. Game was recognized by BAFTA for continuing growth and support. It’s a blast today but all haters talk about meta score.

One more time, I never said they don't take risks at all. They just don't take as many as they should and Phil admits that. Seriously I linked two articles with him saying this.

The only risky game you mentioned just now is Quantum Break. The rest have themes that have been successful in other games many times before.

@Zero_epyon: why are you wasting your time? All anyone needs to do is take a look at the xbone’s game scores outside of anything Forza/gears/halo.

Phil is good at talk. Nothing more. Until he starts dropping some system sellers, it will be more repeat of the last 5 years

The best way to make corrections is to learn from the past.. investing in 1st party with a higher volume of offerings is definitely a step in the right direction.. we'll ofcourse have to wait and see how it plays out but it's clear they are planning to expand well beyond the typical Halo/Gears/Forza formula, which is exactly what the haters have been complaining about (see the above post for a perfect example)..

On a side note, lets please calm down with this idea that everyone, particularly Sony, was taking all these risks while Microsoft sat back and played it safe.. Nearly all of Sony's "bangers" were based on established franchises or were developed by well-known top-tier studios.. Uncharted 4 and God of War are established franchises with Spiderman and Bloodborne being developed by Insomniac and From Software respectively.. the only real "risk" was Horizon Zero Dawn but let's unpack that ideal: Sony was faced with letting Guerilla Games make yet another underwhelming entry in the Killzone series OR make a 3rd person, over-the-shoulder, story-driven action/adventure type game (which has proven to be Sony's "bread and butter").. given the two choices, making a game like Horizon was simply a logical decision rather this huge "risk"..

Microsoft took a combination of safe bets and some risks on games like Ryse, Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break, Recore, Ori, and more.. unfortunately, only one of those games was met with universal success in Ori.. but that's the nature of taking a "risk", things don't always work out as intended.. but some of the narrative on display in this thread is fundamentally flawed.. Microsoft is doing exactly what they need to do to right the ship: acquire and invest in 1st party studios.. Period.. all this other nonsense is just trying to squeeze out a last measure of criticism before the fruits of that labor begin to materialize..

If we're going to count the bolded games then let's see how they compare to Sony.

• Knack
• Driveclub
• Bloodborne
• The Order 1886
• Drawn to Death
• Until Dawn
• The Last Guardian
• The Tomorrow Children
• RIGS (VR)
• Horizon Zero Dawn
• Nioh
• Matterfall
• Helldivers
• Farpoint (VR)
• Firewall: Zero Hour (VR)
• Detroit: Become Human
• Days Gone
• Dreams
• Blood and Truth (VR)
• Ghost of Tsushima
• Death Stranding
• The Inpatient (VR)

and the list goes on...

The titles in bold are games made by Sony owned studios. These are all brand new IPs this generation.

22 titles vs 6ish? But again you don't have to take my word for it. Here's Phil Spencer himself:

Phil Spencer is frank about the reasons for this relatively sluggish performance. “We launched a box that was underpowered compared to the Playstation, and more expensive because of the inclusion of [motion-sensing camera] Kinect in every box,” he says. “Underpowered and overpriced was … not the right model for us. We had shipped some of our franchises too frequently, which had made them lose some of the anticipation that’s important in the entertainment industry. Our studios had lost leaders, which meant they were the studio that they had been before in name rather than in function.”

How can Xbox fix this? By focusing on actual games that people want to play, as well as on a box that lives under your television. Microsoft’s recent investment in game studios is the start of remedying situation, enabling Xbox to take more creative risks, says Phil.

“The entertainment business is a portfolio business,” he adds. “Most games don’t work. Most movies don’t work; most books don’t work. The worst thing you can do is say, I’m going to create a hit game: if you’re going to create one game, the maths says it’s not gonna work, though of course there are exceptions. When you’re trying to do new things with video games, or another entertainment medium, your hit rate is 20-30%.”

https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/jun/11/microsoft-e3-xbox-maker-suggest-streaming-will-replace-consoles

My only point in this thread that got hijacked by nonsense trolling was that adding more developers doesn't mean quality goes up. You're still going to have some of those games miss critically. And in MS' case, they actually have to give them a shot in the first place, something Phil wants to do. And lastly, as I've said before, multiple times, I applaud him and MS for doing something about it at least!

so wait, aren't you the one talking about quality vs quantity?.. so who cares about list numbers? (especially when you clearly omitted games on the Xbox side).. both companies took risks on some games and most of those games didn't pan out.. the reality is that the critically acclaimed games from Sony that everyone keeps talking about were either established franchises or from 2nd party deals with top-tier established studios.. and all of which were some form of 3rd person story-driven action/adventure games which is exactly what's expected from Sony just like Microsoft's bread and butter are mostly online experiences.. and in that regard, Microsoft's established franchises delivered as usual.. games like Sunset Overdrive and Quantum Break were made by top-tier devs that could have potentially turned out "bangers" just like the 2nd party deals worked out for Sony but unfortunately they didn't.. it's ultimately the same difference except Microsoft's bets on 2nd party didn't land nearly as well as Sony's.. this delta in results doesnt nearly paint a picture that "Sony took more risks that paid off while Microsoft played it safe".. bottomline: taking risks isn't what resulted in Sony's "bangers"..

and in terms of your "point", when did Phil say "adding more developers means quality goes up"?.. he's obviously saying that more games announced and in development takes the pressure off hitting certain deadlines for release.. which means more development time overall when needed and necessary, which typically results in more polish.. more polish can obviously lead to higher quality.. I think you're simply trying too hard to insert some sort of criticism where it clearly isn't needed..

What? When did I make an argument of quality vs quantity? It's been a conversation about quantity the whole time. Taking more risks means developing more games, even if those games may end up being unsuccessful. Again, I'm not saying MS didn't take any risks at all, but they sure took way less than they should have and instead focused on pushing out more of its existing first party IPs more frequently. A move that burned them according to Phil.

The article posted in the OP has Phil talking about adding more developers to increase quality.

According to Phil Spencer, more teams basically will mean more quality, because there's less pressure. A problem for Xbox first-party this generation has been that its studios haven't gotten enough development time because they have to hit deadlines.

"We did reach a time in our first party, where the number of games and studios that we actually had […] put a lot of pressure on everything," said Spencer while speaking to Kotaku. "And it became more difficult to manage a portfolio when you kind of needed everything […] to hit the date that it had picked three years ahead of time [and deliver a] very high level of quality. The support that we’re getting now and we’ve had over the last couple of years has allowed us to invest in our first party, adding eight new studios and really create room for us to focus on quality."

My original point is not a criticism of him or MS. It's more of a disagreement. Adding studios is a massive improvement and a great first step and, again, I applauded the decision, but adding more time to polish a game doesn't always result in increased quality of the game. Take Days Gone and Crackdown 3. Both games were delayed multiple times and had some troubled development. Both released and despite having all of that time, they still ended up being received poorly. Days Gone even released with bugs. Something you expect should have been ironed out by the time they released.

That's it. That's all I said. Just those two things. And that somehow turned into all of this "I've got an axe to grind because I hate MS" stuff.

Forza are quality games. Can’t say the same for the rest

@Zero_epyon: you're the one saying quantity =/= quality.. (I used "vs" but clearly you should be smart enough to know the intended context)..

You talk about how more games doesn't mean that there will be higher quality, but when challenged you resort to list wars?.. it doesnt matter how many additional games are developed (as you are already clearly saying), what matters are the end results..

and the end results of Sony's top games didn't come from tons of risk taking, it was based on established franchises and established developers who made the same types of game genres that Sony is already known for.. taking "risks" had virtually nothing to do with that success..

and at the end of the day, sure taking more development time doesnt guarantee higher quality but it definitely is a contributing factor.. Games like Sea of Thieves and State of Decay 2 were hammered primarily for lack of content and/or bugs.. both of which could have been eliminated or reduced with more development time.. again, who's saying that more development time is a silver bullet?.. but clearly it's a tried and true way to increase the overall quality of a game.. and with more games in development to relieve the pressure of releasing certain big-ticket titles, those titles could potentially be released at a higher quality than otherwise..

it's just that simple.. the reason it seems like you have an axe to grind is because you're trying to insert criticism into a clear-cut and well-known ideal of game development: more development time tends to increase the quality and overall polish of the finished product.. period.. that's all Phil was saying.. yet, you decided to insert a "b bu but".. that's your right to do so as this is clearly a forum for such comments.. but don't act surprised when people call you out on it..

@Livecommander: well that can be applied to most games. TLOU has sneaking, crafting, and 3rd person shooting. Majority of games aren’t breaking new ground completely.