This is a quote by Phil from an E3 interview when asked about content exclusivity.
"I will give you an honest answer. Xbox One X is the most powerful console ever built, and this fall it will be the most powerful console in the market. There’s nothing technically that would keep any game a console game maker is building who wants to take advantage of the capability here from making Xbox One X the very best version of every one of those games.
I don’t know what deals get written. I’ve been pretty open about, I’m not a fan of doing deals that hold back specific pieces of content from other platforms. You don’t see that in the deals we’ve done with Assassin’s and Shadow. We’ll have a marketing deal on those, but I don’t say, hey, I need some kind of Strike or skin somebody else can’t play.
I don’t think it’s good for our industry if we got into a point where people are holding back the technical innovation of game developers based on a marketing deal. I don’t know anything about what’s in other people’s deals. But this, clearly, from a technical perspective, is the most powerful console by quite a wide margin. So, when I stood on-stage and I said this will be the best place to play all those games, there’s nothing technically that would keep any developer from not making that true."
I know it isn't going to change anything right now but I appreciate him sticking to his principles and am glad he is in charge of Xbox.
https://youtu.be/q7nH9-H4YE8
I guarantee you won't hear that dickwad Andrew House say anything like this.
Edit 2: First of all, timed exclusive release has a lot of factors. Is MS helping financially in a significant way. Can or is the dev team big enough or capable of developing for more than one platform at a time. Did they approach MS? Did they try Sony and were told no?
Second, the difference between timed exclusivity of an ip ( see above ) and timed exclusive content in a multi-plat game that is launching day and date is very different. The first is because MS/Sony paid for and contributed to the development of the game. The later is a company paying the pub/ developer money to keep content away from another platform. It's not just Destiny, Far Cry 4 and the last 2 AC all had extra missions that never came to the other platform.
Finally, Phil reiterated in multiple interviews that none of the marketing deals they have for AAA titles will have extra content or early DLC release.
English
#Gaming
-
89 RisposteI really dont see how ps4 is still ahead... It now just seems like they became very not user friendly... No backwards compatibility No cross platform even though they wanted it in the past... The games are also not even as great as people hype them up to be... half of them are remasters... But i do gotta admit, i loved persona 5 sooo much. Amazing game..
-
32 RispostePhil seems like a really knowledgable guy, too bad Sony doesn't have a level head on their shoulders. Sony is paying bungie to hold the X back, Sony is absolute scum. [spoiler]Peace is a lie, there is only passion Through strength I gain power Through power I gain victory Through victory my chains are broken[/spoiler]
-
I mean good on him but its not like it'll stop Sony from doing it. Quality exclusive deals and IPs are what push consoles, not just raw power. Look at Nintendo lol. I wish the Xbox One X the best, but if its not going to offer me anything I cant play already on PS4 or Switch than a graphical upgrade, I dont think I could put 500 big ones down on it you know? Theres gotta be some big new exclusive IPs that pull you in; something thats like "shit I really wanna play that, I guess I'll think about getting an Xbox on top of these other consoles I guess" From my perspective anyway, but Im surely not the only one haha.
-
4 RisposteI don't remember Xbox getting 100% exclusive content for games such as CoD when they had deals back in the day. So I don't get how this makes him a hypocrite.
-
4 RisposteHe would've been all for those exclusivity deals if it was Xbox that was making them. Because PlayStation beat him to the punch, he wants to cry that it's not fair. Also, what's worse, a console exclusive strike and a few weapons or an entire game that's paid off for timed exclusivity? Because Xbox seems to be doing the lion's share of the latter.
-
That is a straight up smack on bungivision and Sonys faces
-
14 Risposte"Petty exclusivity deals are the worst." Finally, someone in games talking sens-- >Remembers how many games at Microsoft's E3 were either console exclusive or timed exclusive Oh wait, he's talking shit.
-
8 RisposteSounds like Phil is kinda being a hypocrite. Play Anywhere is a step in the right direction, but PS players still can't play Xbox exclusives. I get he's not really talking about exclusivity in general here, but having exclusives seems to go against this principle he's pretending to have.
-
23 RisposteBecause PS has nothing going for it they have to buy exclusive crap for the random multiplats that 99% of their playerbase play
-
10 RispostePhil just says what people want and the Xbox players follow like a cult. He also said games like hzd and Zelda are not good games. Yet Xbox posted a job to make a game "like horizon zero dawn". So much for it not being s good game. Now Xbox wants to copy PS lol.
-
1 RispondiI get what he's saying !! People will spin it any way they want to suit the narrative they want to portray but the facts are Xbox needs more first party exclusives . They need to utilise the platform they built but honestly options are the key . Sure 4K is great but there needs to be a 1080p 60fps option !! I love 4K but I'd gladly drop 4K to get the frame rate up !!! Anyone that's played in 60fps or above knows how smooth an experience that is and just how noticeable it is . Phil seems to not want to go down the Arkham road where there was so much locked Dlc assigned to different parties that no one on any one platform could own everything . Timed exclusives are fair enough but I get where he's coming from with unobtainable content as a result of platform !!
-
3 RisposteI will admit I just skimmed the OP but it also needs to be pointed out that when Microsoft had the timed DLC it was before Spencer's time as being the head of Xbox.
-
2 RisposteSo it sounds like "im not going to be a douche and fight for exclusives. I will only offer timed advantages but no content will be restricted in the gaming world (only time restrictions) " So he doesnt want exclusives for the xbox anymore?
-
6 RisposteI don't understand why a game developer would want to limit the possible number if people buying their game by tethering it to only one console or the other. It makes more sense to have every console of current generation have your game available and playable as well as pc. -blam!- exclusivity because it only hurts the gamers in the long run.
-
Modificato da Pahvi: 6/18/2017 1:18:21 PMGiant bomb has an ~hour long interview with mr phil. Sensible man with very good pr skills.[spoiler]also, was a coder, i super respect that, brain needed[/spoiler] I don't care about bc, but he talks of it, and why he wanted it. Those exclusivity things are so nonsense, launch exclusive, console exclusive, just makes me -blam!-ing cringe... But it is what it is
-
5 RisposteModificato da Unforgiven: 6/17/2017 8:52:59 PMHe is against it because 1. Microsoft would have to spend money to get that exclusive content. 2. They had done the same thing before with COD and GTA4 with timed exclusive DLC packs. And noone seemed to mind. So really it is all just PR speak. They say they don't like it now because Destiny 2 is still goin to be better on PS4 Pro. If they did make the deal before they would have got it. It is their own fault and noone else. So that's why they don't like it. What they tell you and what they mean are two different things. If you believe everything they say, then you must be naive. Activision saw potential and made a deal with Sony regarding to Bungie exclusive content. Bungie was ok with it I guess. Phil is not ok with it. Sorry Phil, they made a deal.
-
16 RisposteThe only people who care about exclusivity are console warfighters. Exclusivity hurts gamers by forcing money out of their pocket to buy multiple consoles if they want to play certain games, it's not a pro-gamer thing. The only reason for anyone to want console exclusives is childish banter which doesn't interest me much anymore.
-
42 RisposteModificato da BLEEHOW97: 6/16/2017 5:29:25 PMIt kinda sounds like he's just making excuses. If he truly believes exclusivity is "bad for the industry" he would cancel all Xbox exclusive franchises. Or at least start making them multi platform. Which he won't do. Don't get me wrong I respect the guy, but him saying that was kinda bullshit
-
13 RisposteModificato da LahDsai: 6/17/2017 5:34:18 AMHe's being really tricky with his wording here. He starts off by saying, he's not anti-exclusive but rather he's against parity. He's saying if X (PS4 Pro) can do this but Y (XB1X) can do that, he thinks developers shouldn't limit the more poweful machine to play on the less powerful machine's level. For example, some developers have said they're limiting framerates in multi-player games so players on 8th generation consoles aren't at a disadvantage against players on 8.5th generation consoles. He doesn't directly disagree with that policy but instead says that he's against it if game makers are doing it because someone (Sony) paid them to ensure parity. He then admits that he doesn't know that that's happening in an off handed way, however. It's a clever little McCarthyism, shifting potential blame on Sony if the XB1X doesn't live up to some expectations but gives him an out by saying, "Hey, I never said that was the case. I just said it [i][b]could[/b][/i] happen." He then goes on to say he's anti-exclusive [i]content[/i] (not anti-exclusive). He specifically mentions Destiny content which is timed exclusive. So he's not OK with holding back [b]content[/b] (as in [i]Destiny[/i]) but holding back an [b]entire game[/b] is fine (as in [i]Black Desert[/i]). He also goes on to say they will still have their "marketing deals", which is extremely vague. It could simply be that they get to showcase these games at large conferences (such as E3) but, technically, a timed exclusive "strike or skin" is also classified as a marketing deal. So really what's being said here is, "Hey, I don't like it, but I'm not saying we'd never do it." Kind of a "Hey guys, I'm on [i]your[/i] side," wording. tl;dr He carfully words things to A) shift the blame if XB1X doesn't perform as well as people thought it would B) say he's anti-exclusive content (not anti-exclusive or anti-timed-exclusive for full games) C) give himself an out to say "Well, I [i]technically[/i] never said that was going to be the case." You gotta admire that marketing speak. The guy's got it down to an art.
-
1 RispondiGo like it please https://www.bungie.net/en/Community/Detail?itemId=227784193 please go and like my movie of the week entry
-
9 RisposteGod I would hate to be an x-box player. Took 3 years to catch up and 500 dollars still doesn't get you any games.
-
11 RisposteI get what he's [i]saying[/i], but how then does he explain all the times exclusives he shown at his e3 stage? 22 exclusive games and 14 of them timed exclusives. Its not as though anyone us have a small back log, so there's plenty of games to keep all of us busy for months, but Phill's words do not match his [i]actions[/i].
-
Most of what everyone is saying is right! I feel like this has gotten way out of control and I hope more people like Phil Spencer step up and realize that.
-
These are my thoughts on timed exclusively. I wish they would come up with a better way to implement it
-
25 RisposteI was hoping someone would post this. Phil Spencer continues to impress me on how realistic and fan oriented he is.
-
That's pretty cool. And he's right. It is a very anti-consumer practice, and the only reason for anybody to be supporting it is purely out of greed and selfishness.