The introduction of Microsoft’s next-generation game console has not gone smoothly.
Initially, the company upset some users by introducing new rules restricting the sale and trade of game disks, while requiring the new machine to connect to the Internet every day. Even though it reversed those policies,the perception that Microsoft had stumbled became a theme that echoed across the Internet months before the launch.
During the IGN Live interview with Phil Spencer, the crowd cheered even if the topic was about closures, and its because they were told to.
Just reading this headline alone made me feel grimy. Disgusting, all around. Haven't trusted IGN since over a decade ago, so this isn't really surprising to hear.
MS are buying up the industry so you need a compliant media to tell you how awesome consolidation and mass layoffs are... and they know MS is IP hunting too, they will be cut off from review copies of some of gaming's biggest IP's if they don't play ball.
The only way they can rise excitement in a crowd is paying for it. LAMENESS is MIcrosoft best product to date.
I think that kind of thing night be standard. I once was in the audience for Wheel of Fortune and there was a guy that briefed us before the show on his hand signals, when we were supposed to react/applaud and stuff like that and we were told to check under our seats because one of them had a prize underneath it.
Edit: Okay, read the article, this was definitely some slimy behaviour by IGN and it sounds like it wasn't just on the behalf of Xbox either.
Also, since IGN bought Humble Bundle years ago, they stopped occasionally giving a game away for free during certain big sales events etc, screw IGN.
It is for say a game show or similar shows for entertainment purposes but a interview not really.
Bruno Rodriguez confirmed that his statement applied to the entire three-day Fanfest event, not solely Phil Spencer's interview. Regrettably, this part of his response is absent from the article, which raises questions about its omission.
Here is the complete explanation
https://x.com/BrunoRo115301...
Petebloodyonion,
It is an odd omission. While I do believe IGN has some problematic biases, one can't really say it's done for Spencer in light of this information.
Good follow up.
I remember when they gave Alien Isolation a bad review because the alien AI acted like a actual Xenomorph which was free to do what it wanted and hunt you down, and docked Days Gone points because it had a white female as Deacons Girl, oh and they have one of the worst fanboys in Dustin, he has no shame whatsoever.
Don't forget "too much water". It's like they hate hire people that hate their jobs. This is a people problem, when people aren't humbled they become full of themselves. IGN and other news publishers have been given too much sway, and too much preferential treatment. They forget they're meant to inform the people, and have instead become a tool to sell an image these companies want to portray. Perception of power and authority and influence corrupts people.
Former PlayStation CEO Shawn Layden mocked Xbox Chief Phil Spencer on Twitter over his comments in a recent interview, though it seems the former PlayStation boss didn't see the entire interview before reacting.
Must be a slow news day 🙄 😴 We're talking about a former ceo that doesn't even work for Sony anymore
@mp1st.com’s Ibrahim Kabir is so invested in the format wars that when Shawn Layden called out Phil Spencer for his hypocritical stance on Call of Duty exclusivity, Ibrahim got upset at the mocking of Spencer. So now he’s written a useless article to say Phil Spencer deliberately said that because IT WAS A TRAP?!!
Please stop this nonsense, just stop it. Write about news, not this crap.
Just more senseless crap in attempts to distract us away from all the DEI BS the industry is trying to pull.
He wasn't baited, it was a stupid hypocritical comment from one Phillip Spencer which is par for the course for him.
Well he saying he didn't want to do slimy tactics because he wants it to go to everyone like he's a saint...but we know Starfield still isn't on PS and the call of duty parity is due to a 10 year contract they signed to help get the Activision buy out to go through.
https://www.google.com/amp/...
He also complained that he couldn't advertize COD on their showcase because of the Marketing deal Sony had with COD when they had one with Cyberpunk and currently have one with all the Atlus games. It's just hypocrisy all around.
@VersusDMC they're also the ones who did those deals first on the 360. You'd also bet if they were market leader, they'd be doing the same thing because Microsoft are a bunch of hypocrites.
Also, Phil Spencer is far from a saint. I've never seen such a despicable and worthless human being in my entire life. Plus his stupid smile, clearly evil and I just want to punch him in the face as hard as I can.
Gamepass is good for gamers, but the worst thing for developers and you can bet if it takes off even more, the monthly fee will skyrocket. Not that it will, the subscriptions aren't increasing and I seriously doubt they will, they've reach their peak already.
@Giga_Gaia I don't know what's worse the comment or the people who liked your comment.
"Phil Spencer is far from a saint. I've never seen such a despicable and worthless human being in my entire life. Plus his stupid smile, clearly evil and I just want to punch him in the face as hard as I can."
He is the CEO of a video game company. I can think of a hundred other people who deserve that level of hatred.
You failed to mention what vile act was done by Phil Spenser but I suspect the main thing he is really guilty of is that he is Sony's main competitor. Xbox in the 360 days is much different than the Xbox of today so whatever was done back then doesn't apply to how Xbox is being run today. Had Xbox continued with that style of management, they would likely have remained the market leader by a significant margin as they would purposely outbid Sony on every deal. Except what we are hearing Phil Spenser say is that Sony is making all these deals which are detrimental to Xbox which is odd because he has more money than PlayStation. This leads me to believe that his style of leadership is much different from what we know Xbox was back in the 360 days.
Leave this console war nonsense behind. They are just pieces of plastic for your entertainment. Start thinking like a consumer and show no loyalty to either side.
"And Microsoft absolutely ripped Hifi rush, redfall and Starfield off playstation as they had PS5 versions in development."
Big difference between knowing the back room politics of what we found out and those games not being formerly announced to be on PS in the first place, vs a game like Stellar Blade that was announced to the world that its coming to Xbox only years later no longer coming to Xbox. Again those games weren't announced to be on PS. Plus, just like COD they own those games which means they can do what they please with those games. Hi FI made it on PS5 eventually.
Unlike Final Fantasy remakes, keeping a 3rd party IP off other platforms. IP Sony doesn't own. You're right MS was very slimy mainly during the 360 days and early X1 days. As of late in the past 8+ years or so Sony has been doing more 3rd party deals and having timed exclusive things compared to MS. Again I go where the facts are, as you know.
Ms hasn't had many 3rd party exclusives games cause all the 3rd party games their paying for day 1 on gamepass. Idk how tf yall can't see that. They can't pay for both. Well won't pay for both. So what do you want. Day 1 3rd party or 3rd party exclusives
Also come on we already know game sales just aren't there
So if Sony bought Square and every Square game was exclusive to playstation it would be fine but 3 Square games exclusive to PS5 and several on other consoles is worse?
And Microsoft is slimy for not releasing Indiana Jones on PS5 because it is IP Microsoft doesn't own, right?
"So if Sony bought Square and every Square game was exclusive to playstation it would be fine but 3 Square games exclusive to PS5 and several on other consoles is worse?"
Yeah since they would own them. They can do as they please. If the roles were reversed you would be real mad at MS for keeping those games to themselves instead of investing in new IP MS would poach 3rd party constantly, like they use to do. Everyone would hate MS for making the remakes only on Xbox, I mean everyone. Let's not pretend ppl won't.
From a PR standpoint Phil won't mention all the slimy stuff he used to do constantly. Like the entire 360 generation and early x1 days until fans and media blasted him when it came to TR. That's just common sense he won't talk about that.
These are two professional sleaze bags. They know what they are doing when it comes to lying, being slimy and turning a profit. They might be okay outside of work, but while they are playing out their drama for a paycheck, their characters are the moustache twirling bad guy.
I think most people knew that was just click bait stuff meant to get a rise out of sony fans. Unfortunately, some fell for it. Phil wasn't taking a shot at sony or anyone else. All he meant was we are giving you a choice.
The former boss of PlayStation has responded to some recent comments made by Xbox head Phil Spencer in a recent interview. The wide-ranging interview covered a variety of topics, with the conversation at one point leading Spencer to mention that he doesn't want to do "slimy platform things" to force gamers to play games a certain way, which has now prompted a response by PlayStation's former leader.
“Phillip W. Spencer III:"Xbox’s aim with Call of Duty is to give players choice, not "do slimy platform things" that make one option more appealing."
Yet Xbox were the ones who started this exclusive crap with CoD during the 360/PS3 era. This guy is something else.
Yep, some of their fans also parrot this hypocritical line, MS started and popularised that trend, then spent 80 billion.
Pot kettle black.
"MS started and popularised that trend"
What a load of horse poo. Atari was paying for and securing exclusives back in the '80s. It's been around since the dawn of gaming, they're all at it. The earliest one I actually remember as it played out was Sony hijacking Final Fantasy 7 from Nintendo.
Edit: just read the comments again, are ye only talking about COD exclusive deals? If so then yeah, ye're probably right!
Old mcgroin
Just a heads up. Nintendo lost square by staying with cartridge. That's fact. After square pleaded with Nintendo to switch to a larger format. So Sony didn't really hi jack anything.
Last where we're you before Sony even entered cause this was common during Sega vs Nintendo.
Also before that I believe on nes. Developers used to have to sign like a 2 year exclusivity with Nintendo to be on their platform.
Might wanna read up a bit
@shinoff2183
"where we're you before Sony even entered cause this was common during Sega vs Nintendo."
"Might wanna read up a bit"
Might want to take your own advice and maybe read the start of my comment where I said "Atari was paying for and securing exclusives back in the '80s. It's been around since the dawn of gaming".
Gaming didn't start with Nintendo buddy.
@Old McGroin4h
"Sony hijacking Final Fantasy 7 from Nintendo"
Square Enix and a few other developers wanted Nintendo to adopt a disc format over the cartridge which they saw as outdated.
Sony literally came to Nintendo with a business proposition to make a console together, the Nintendo-PlayStation which would utilize that new format. Nintendo being the stubborn guys they are told them no, refused the disc format and eventually that lead Sony to go at it themselves.
Nintendo lost Final Fantasy because of their own choices, they didn't want to grow or evolve...the same issue they still have today in places.
Fact is exclusive deals and timed content is something Microsoft really hammered down on in the 360 days. What Atari did was no where near the same level as Microsoft who had so much money in comparison.
COD deals, games like Mass Effect, Bioshock, Tales of Vesperia, Dead Rising 3, Rise of the Tomb Raider and timed DLC expansions...Microsoft had it all.
@ Old McGroin - What, are you mental? Do you know gaming history? Sony didn't "hijack" Square and Final Fantasy VII. Nintendo refused to go the CD route because they were too easy to pirate. Nintendo was ALWAYS and still is to this day combating piracy as their number one goal. Final Fantasy was a pretty big game and I believe held the record for the most discs at one time. Granted, the game size itself isn't actually three discs long, we saw what could be done with Resident Evil 2 fitting on a 64MB cartridge but the quality was bad and Final Fantasy would have met the same fate. Squaresoft made the decision to go PlayStation just as many developers did. Nintendo was very controlling and their hardware was difficult and expensive. Sony had hired Steve Race from Sega whom had taken everything he learned from Sega and Tom Kalinski and applied it to the PlayStation. Sony made it easy for developers. Xbox goes to daddy Microsoft, who has deep pockets, and asks him for money to bail him out. We saw this with Peter Moore when he was Executive VP of Xbox under, then CEO of Microsoft at the time Steve Ballmer. Moore went to Ballmer and asked him for 1 billion to solve the Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death problem, which Xbox has ALWAYS had a problem with, they can't design hardware, which is why they need to exit the hardware business, but Sony didn't "hijack" Square from Nintendo. Nintendo made a lot of bad business decisions and Squaresoft didn't like it. Sony was making all the rights one doing business as Sega had done, but learned from Segas mistakes of having a wedge between Japan and America, Sony divisions worked in better cooperation, they had to or they would have failed just like Sega, so it was Nintendo who did it to themselves sticking with an expensive cartridge to mitigate piracy, but wouldn't ya know it? Pirates still found a way
Every word out of MS can be flipped on its head to reveal the truth.
"Yet Xbox were the ones who started this exclusive crap with CoD during the 360/PS3 era. This guy is something else."
That's not actually true. Sony paid to keep games off of Nintendo and sega back in day. Plus they payed blocking rights to keep certain games off of gamepass which is probably what Phil may be referring to. Imo that makes them slimey too if we're being honest. At the end of the day it's just business. There is no doubt in my mind that if sony could make huge purchases like Microsoft, they would. You probably won't see sony respond with an official statement because they know they are just as guilty.
"Sony paid to keep games off of Nintendo and sega back in day."
That's not actually true.
Nintendo (and Sega) had licensing of games exclusive to their system way before PlayStation even existed, and both used 3'rd party developers to make licensed games exclusively for their hardware.
You and Microsoft are literally trying to rewrite history.
To be fair here, Einhander, Phil didn't mention Sony by name with his comment, it was just implied.
That said, the practice goes all the way back to the "Nintendo Seal of Quality" that not only limited developers to publishing on NES, but also limited the number of games they could make per year to 5.
Nintendo did it, sega did it was business at the end of the day. Y'all people gotta stop rolling on the Sony did it back in the day nonsense. Always blaming someone and back in the day was back in the day stop going that far back in time.
You're creating a strawman here. Nobody claimed Sony didn't do that type of tactic. He specifically singled out CoD since that's what the whole topic and Phil's statement was about.
Don't be dishonest man
Regardless it's not about who done it first....it's about who is doing it now.
You do know that Xbox does the same thing right. Xbox blocks Sony, Sony blocks Xbox. Please stop crying about gamepass. Thats the root of the problem.
What examples do you have of this? I would argue there are none. Sony didn't pay a dime. Steve Race was the CEO of PlayStation under Olaf Olaffson at that time. Race learned from Sega (Tom Kalinski) how run a game company. SEGA didn't even buy devs off, you couldn't, you didn't have too because Nintendo was notorious for treating developers and publishers so badly. All you had to do in those days, was be respectful and treat people like humans, that built strong relationships and making things easy was what did it vs the Nintendo Ultra 64 was known for being difficult. I think it's that simple.
A prime example of this is Andy Gavin and Jason Reuben who started Naughty Dog. They originally wanted to develop for the Sega Saturn, Crash Bandicoot was almost on Sega as well but after they saw how complicated it was and how much easier the PlayStation was they opted to develop for PlayStation. And this was pre-Sony Acquisition. Sony didn't offer them any money, they were backed by Universal under former Sega employee and game developer Mark Cerny at that time. Eventually, you're probably right, but Sony didn't start sliding money Squares way. PlayStation built a platform that was undeniable. They were a clone of Sega but without all the SoA and SoJ drama, they got along better, but Race took everything he learned from Sega and applied it to PlayStation. I think Tom Kalinski was a little jealous of Race though, I think he wanted the job but Race may have spoken to Sony first and snuck in before Kalinski could have even been asked. Eventually, Sony did start playing that game, they all do, but it wasn't really needed just because PlayStation was so smart with their marketing and making it easy for developers. Remember, Nintendo was notorious for being difficult, possessive, shrewd, fanatical, and would sue for just about anything. They were tyrants but they had respect because Atari had killed the industry and to this day, Nintendo is still given respect solely because they brought gaming back and paved a trail for how to do business, at least mostly right in an industry where people had been shut down big time so, no matter who you are, you HAVE to give that respect to Nintendo. But, PlayStation, as they learned from Sega was developer relationships. Xbox doesn't have that and that's why you're not seeing PlayStation snapping up Street Fighter, Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear IP to keep it on PlayStation is because PlayStation doesn't play that game as much of Xbox because Xbox has such deep pockets. If Sony played that game, you wouldn't see Final Fantasy on Xbox or Metal Gear at all or Sony would've boughten those IP. Sony is relying on long term relationships with publishers for loyalty, Xbox doesn't have that because they showed up much later
The first instance of this crap I remember is Soul Calibur II. GameCube got Link, Xbox had Yoda and PS2 had Darth Vader.
you are thinking Soul Calibur 4 for the SW characters. Soul Calibur 2 had Link (GC), Spawn (XB) and Heihachi (PS2). Then Soul Calibur 3 was exclusive to the PS2 while Soul Calibur 4 was on 360/PS3... no Nintendo version until Soul Calibur Legends for Wii.
Adding on to what darth said, Soulcalibur II HD came out later on PS3 (maybe Xbox 360 too?) and it included the PS2 exclusive character Heihachi and the Xbox exclusive fighter Spawn but unsurprisingly, Link wasn't included
Soul Calibur IV on Xbox had Yoda (hate fighting that short bastard) and PS3 had Darth Vader but each platform had the other fighter as paid DLC.
True... and yet the kind of 'exclusivity' MS paid for was usually timed. The same things would still come to the PS but when Sony does it they make it so what they pay for stays exclusive.
I get paying to get something sooner, but paying to keep others from ever getting it too... that shit is slimy AF.
"but paying to keep others from ever getting it too... that shit is slimy AF "
So than you agree the Act/Blizz and Zenimax deals are slimy AF becasue there are definitely former multi-plat games PlayStation gamers lost becasue of the aqusitions.
@romulus, the entire practice is slimy, no matter who does it. Especially if the games in question were initially mutliplat and then became paid exclusives through acquisitions or contractual obligations.
As far as I know, MS has not removed access to any existing games for PS gamers. You can probably look to ones that were initially announced but never released until after, those likely shouldnt count because they weren't existing games in franchises that were always multiplatform. We can look to games such as Street Fighter V as a good example of a game in a multiplatform series that suddenly became exclusive and other gamers lost out on. Same goes for Dead Rising 3. Both of which were some back alley deal made between Capcom and the platform holder which YES... those are slimy AF.
@Darth
"True... and yet the kind of 'exclusivity' MS paid for was usually timed. The same things would still come to the PS but when Sony does it they make it so what they pay for stays exclusive."
Like Dead Rising 3? 🤔
Can you blame Sony for paying for exclusives. Ms went and bought up 2 major publishers, many studios , alot of the wrpg market.
Are you as upset ps fans don't get to play Ms 3rd party exclusives as well
@shin... in the grand timeline of things... Sony paying for exclusives predates anything MS did since joining the club.
***As far as I know, MS has not removed access to any existing games for PS gamers.***
In what time frame? Recently? No. But, you know, they definitely have.
And why do we always goal post with 'removed access to any existing games' as if that's the only slimy thing these companies are doing, specifically the fact that Microsoft is buying up massive publishers to control where those games go just like Sony making agreements with third parties (who can say no, btw).
Did any of these companies you mention help pay for development? If they did then what’s the problem? Anything you say darth is just like phil its a90% garbage.
Phil says things but it's the actions of the company he runs that just nullifies all of his statements. You can't call a company slimy for using money to buy exclusives when you do the exact same thing by buying out studios and making their new games exclusives. At least up until the point you realize you're not selling enough and need to put them on that other platform to make the game studios stick around and exist.
There's a difference. Buying a studio you own the actual game. While the other you're just paying to purposely stop the game from releasing on another platform. When you actually own something you should have the right to do with it as you like. Not when you don't own it. And as other's have stated Sony did this back in the day before Microsoft ever made Xbox. It's why I laugh when people claim Sony creates stuff from the ground up. then get upset that Microsoft buys studios. When Sony did the same thing when they first started Playstation. And it's the same with people complaining about studios being shutdown and employees being released. when it's been happening all over the industry. the real issue is game development has jut got way out of hand. Games are too expensive and take way too long to make now a days. It's a whole industry issue.
***There's a difference. Buying a studio you own the actual game. While the other you're just paying to purposely stop the game from releasing on another platform.***
https://imgur.com/BOK3bhj
***When you actually own something you should have the right to do with it as you like. Not when you don't own it.***
You do know that the owners of a game AGREE to make it exclusive when they sign exclusive deals, right? Do you think Sony goes in with guns and forces them to do it or they die? The people who own the IP are still making the decision as to where it goes.
Yeah...I love how now that's a plus while also limiting IP from other platforms at the same time. What a bullshit slimy car salesman tactic.
Anyone with a brain or memory bigger than a pea can remember who started cod bs
Do you realise that Sony has been making exclusive 3rd party deals since the PS1 (even before the existence of Xbox)?
Claiming that Microsoft started exclusive 3rd party crap is just plain ignorance.
Wait are we pretending PlayStation didn't do paid third party exclusives before Microsoft? Now I've heard it all ...
I feel like it started before that. One can say that Soul Calibur II predates CoD deals with exclusive content for multiplatform games.
I don't really care "who started it" because they all do it, honestly. Just on the merits of hypocrisy, yeah, Spencer deserves to be handed his ass.
Phil was and is the right man for the company he is working for. Slimy..through and through. The Persons as well as the company itself.
Wow so you all really loved corporate scum like Jim Ryan then? All the games as a service projects and no backwards compatibility unless it's an overpriced remaster? And abandoning Twisted metal, resistance, syphon, getaway and all of the other IPs?
And if Phil is so bad why did the xbox showcase/the games he greenlit annihilate PS last presentation?
"You scared bro?"
No one is scared, have you seen the hardware/software sales from the most irrelevant gaming brand in the past 15 yrs aka the green brand...???
Their latest show was so ''AmAzInG'' that they'll be able to sell at least 40 more consoles/games and capture the attention of at least 6 more gamers around the planet...
Phil's a blowhard , and fk Jim Ryan to. I feel Jim's the reason sonys at were their at. Game wise. To say blew the lead is such and overstatement though lol. Ps is still killing Xbox.
Getting moist over a showcase really. ? let's take a short step in time to Redfall and it's epic showcase remembering the part how the AI adapts like never before and CrackDown with the power of " The Cloud "
Young chap it's advertising nothing more nothing less that power mop turbo in the advert will not clean your floor quicker
The fixation on Jim Ryan is a bit creepy I'm not gonna lie pass the phone back to your Dad...foot steps..
Hello you don't know me but that child of yours is showing an unhealthy fascination with an old man please contact child services. Like yesterday
@The Professional, Jim Ryan never portrayed himself to be the savor of gaming or act as if the company he works for was victimized by the evil competition like that chubby dope Philip Spencer. Lol. Ryan almost never talked yet here you are hating on him because the mindless masses told you to.
You xbox fans never learn, always running your mouth about Sony as soon as anything good happens for xbox. Yet after the games release and the sales results are shown, xbox stays dead last in both. It would be wise for you to hold off on the trash talking.
This is what’s wrong with you xbox fanboys. One dig at xbox and all you can see is that the person is a PS fanboy. There’s this thing called neutral where you are allowed to criticize both camps. Here I’ll bite, Jim Ryan is a d*ck for pushing the GaaS pivot within PS. Now’s your turn criticizing the slime Phil Spencer, go on.
Are you saying Astro bot is annihilated? How embarrassing🥴 you're a joke. The Xbox showcase was great. Well done Microsoft. But why does it need to be compared to a 30 minute state of play that was announced out of nowhere 2 days prior?
POS boss for a POS brand with POS fans, that's what xbox is.
So good to see them begging for Sony and Nintendo money and making all their games multiplatform, they are the ultimate losers and got what they deserve.
What trash you must be. Criticizing every fan of a brand you don't like. You're a great example of PS fans and bias. Anyone you don't agree with is wrong and stupid right? You must be a liberal.
I mean your a bit wrong to though lol. And of course just like a true repub, gotta resort to politics. Yall some straight crazy in the head mfs
"Critisizing every fan of a brand you don't like"
"You're a great example of PS fans and bias"
Oh the irony!!!
I was kind of with you, except for the hate in your words, until you said "liberal". What is it with "conservatives" and their anger? :P
Should it really have to be said? Great games are great games, no matter what platform they come out on. Being a loyalist makes no sense. I do give Sony (and Nintendo) a lot of credit for nurturing and growing their first party developers and putting out the great games they do. Sony seemed to loose their way for a few years, hopefully they are back on the right track. I have a gripe with Nintendo and Microsoft, but only on a couple of issues. Nintendo selling us cheap hardware and thereby holding their games back and Microsoft for holding back this generation with Series S. I just want great games with hardware manufacturer supporting them by giving them the most power possible so developers can keep pushing gameplay. There's still so much more powerful hardware can offer us other than just graphical fidelity.
'You must be a liberal'
Hilarious when you're the one in the replies acting like a 'triggered snowflake' lol.
I'm no liberal, but I'll take someone thinking I'm stupid for disagreeing over actually enforcing policies dismantling reproductive rights and hypocritically crying about the victim mentality coming out of identity politics... But that's another discussion.
You realize that being a fan of something inherently means you have some sort of bias, right? Show me anyone without bias and I'm show you a liar, mate.
Jim Ryan is literally corporate scum who doesn't play games. Enjoy Concord.
Weren't you just calling out someone else about how demonizing people is bad. Here you are thiugh
Why do you keep bringing up Jim Ryan like anyone is defending him? lol he ain't even part of the discussion. He can kick rocks too. But you acting real hurt like Spencer is your daddy or somethin.
Phil Spencer surely must have the world record in the amount of times a CEO can put his foot in his mouth throughout his career. I honestly wonder why Microsoft even lets him do interviews at all at this point.
He's a nightmare to PR guys like me. The kind of boss that wont stick to the briefing deck and most likely to say the wrong shit or stir unnecessary shit up that will get the Comms team blamed for it.
Tommy Tallerico still holds the record for stupid interviews and comments. If you don't know what happened with the Amico its a fascinating tale of pure lies and idiocy. But yeah, Spencer is second place, perhaps one day, he'll even top Tommy.
Phil spencer says what he does because the shill access media will do all the spinning for him. The major companies own the mainstream media .
@dboyc310
That's a good one. It reminds me of the E3 audience at the micro$oft conference. Now on topic. The PS4is outselling the bone world wide. period.
Less than PS4.
I wonder why they won't talk pre order nunbers? I would love to know what they are...
hmmmmmm