Red Bull Games Australia has compiled a look into gaming in 2017, which features not just games, but also industry trends, new consoles and more.
From the article:
"Nintendo Switch
It’s the talk of the town and in gaming relevance, it’s the starting bookend (remember, there are always two) to the 2017 year that is gaming, despite releasing in March. We have a slew of burning questions around it, all of which should be answered by Nintendo soon enough, but for now its known existence is more than enough for enthusiasts out in the wild to get all giddy about. But here are the basics:
- It’s a new Nintendo console, and that’s always exciting, even if they don’t always end up successful.
- It has a better controller than the Wii U -- this is a no-brainer, but the repositioning of the right thumbstick is going to make a huge difference to gamers of multiple platforms.
- It’s portable and you can play it on planes! Yes, you can play a lot of games on various laptops, but can you play Mario, Zelda or Metroid… legally?
- There’s at least some form of new Super Mario coming, as teased in the console’s initial video reveal.
The verdict will be out for a while on Nintendo Switch, but for now, the hype is very, very real and we’re as excited as anyone to get our mitts on it."
Regarding Microsoft’s position in the broader game industry, it seems we have our answer: It’s now a publisher first, a subscription platform second, and a console hardware platform a distant third.
when i hear people use the word "exclusive"... all I can think of is the princess bride: https://youtu.be/dTRKCXC0JF...
I would really like for you to expound on this comment.
I assume we both know what exclusive means, but what do you think it infers when utilized in the discussion of games now?
You have pure exclusives, only on one platform no where else. Then you have platform exclusives, available across a family of platforms (such as PS consoles or Xbox consoles). After that you have console exclusives, it's on PC and/or mobile and on a single console system. Then we have timed exclusives, those fall in one of the above but are limited in how long they will last as such.
Understanding that, why do you think the author doesn't understand the word "exclusive"? Do you think it's because everyone should know that games going to Xbox and PC on Day One is what we mean by exclusive now in industry related terms? Do you just ignore that there exist actual exclusives, especially on PC and Nintendo Switch?
Then let's go further in the article where the author said:
"Xbox hardware, and its attitude to console exclusivity for Microsoft-owned games remains ambivalent at best."
Is this the bit you are referencing? Is it a wrong statement? I feel that's up to opinion. But obviously they understand the discussion is about games going only to Xbox and PC. Do they not understand that games like CoD Back Ops 6, Sea of Thieves, DOOM, Fallout 76 being Microsoft developed titles going 'everywhere' they would have if owned by a third-party?
I think they do. And I think this is the crux of their opinion. I feel they are looking at all of this potential power Microsoft is wielding and how they are wielding it. They aren't taking those massive games and making them a foundation to sell their hardware. They're making them a foundation for selling their subscription service and leaving hardware to flounder with no similar titles that would sell the hardware. Sure, there are a few exclusives, but they are going to PC. And that's always going to hurt them in the discussion of 'hardware support'. And now with these latest games, with more games going to more places than just PC, is it not an accurate statement to say that Microsoft's focus is on Games first, subscription second, hardware somewhere down the line in third?
Would like to hear your response. Thank you.
More like an afterthought. Not even a service. Most gamers around the globe don't care about any of the green ''offerings'' and now that they're going full 3rd party even less.
So you're suggesting people would care more, if their games were available to fewer people?
Lol. Yep, what a good gamer mentality that is.
Ybarra, who spent two decades at Microsoft, acknowledged concerns about the future of Xbox hardware by fans once more first-party games go multiplatform.
As an xbox guy, If porting some exclusives to sony and nintendo allows MS to continue offering gamepass day one, I'm all for it. Port them all if you need to.
Your way of thinking is why Microsoft is where they are. All they had to do was hold the line of the 360 circa 2010. Had the continued with thay strategy they would not have had to introduce gamepass which has spectacularly kneecapped them.
@hof, but then they would still be in the same position as sony, fighting for those same 150 million customers. As a publicly traded company, they still need to show growth. Once sony is day and date on PC, they will also need to find new customers, likely by embracing 3rd party. What you consider "kneecapping" I consider an incredible customer value in gamepass.
Kneecapping the xbox and pc owners are loving it I do t think u telise how popular gamepass is
They were faltering in the last year or two of the 360 era. Don't forget that they doubled down on Kinect, which might be part of the reason why they didn't have much to show going into Xbox One.
But GamePass is not MS' consolation effort; it was always the endgame! MS is all about subscription-based revenue-streams now! They have turned almost all of their businesses into software-as-a-service; only Windows remains. Stay tuned for that one in the next 5 years.
As a consumer, I really get that point of view.
As an ex dev seeing what's happened to the industry I have no doubt that GP is harming the industry I love by devaluing games, so my thoughts are little less positive about it.
I can agree with the sentiment that most of their games should be multi platform. Until they swallowed up these devs, most of the titles we are wating for would have been multi platform anyway.
@ThinkThink
"As an xbox guy, If porting some exclusives to sony and nintendo allows MS to continue offering gamepass day one, I'm all for it. Port them all if you need to."
I won´t say all, but definitely some games I wouldn´t care either as long excellence continues to be delivered to us.
If some then why not all? Think think isn't wrong, his reasoning is quite concise in that yes multi platform brings more funds to develop more games all available day 1 on gamepass, he's happy as Larry.
you keep saying continues mate, like its been happening all a long, I see on another post, you used the same word,
xbox has forza, which is a quality game, and the rest are 8/10's
they have very little 9 or 10/10s. quality bar is set lower for xbox.
also on topic, which would Playstation fans buy ported 8/10 games when they are accustomed to 9's
@Cockney
"If some then why not all?"
Because if MS wants to remain in the console, business (like they already confirmed multiple times been working on a next gen Xbox console), they would never allow all of their flagship first party games to be available on the main competitor´s console.
Yeah it's better for the games too.
Like yeah Playstation gets Doom and Call of Duty. But they have to pay 70 dollars for it or 100 dollars if you want a special edition. Meanwhile we get it for nothing extra or 30 dollars for upgrades like the Black Ops 6 Vault Edition.
If Playstation and Nintendo players are used to fund my gamepass content I'm fine with that.
It benefits the games and me as well.
I still find it funny that Microsoft is spinning its obligations that it has to releasing on other systems as if it is some noble decision. Before they bought the companies they did these games were all in development easily the last 3-5 years and had some type of standing agreement they absorbed.
People are acting like this is a dependency when in reality it’s them just trying to avoid major lawsuits. I am willing to bet any game that’s started development in the last year that would release in the next 5 will eventually be Xbox only unless in the next 5 years Xbox just fails hard.
And with the new skus they released I REALLY don’t foresee them having a huge jump. When now the disc version is a HUGE luxury at 600 with them not even having a physical presence anymore it’s them killing their physical market.
It's not just about them avoiding lawsuits. It's about them trying to maximize their returns. They didn't buy multiplat publishers to become exclusive. That wouldn't make sense money wise.
The 600 dollar console is a special edition.
The regular Series X is still 500 dollars.
They just need super strong games and consistency. This showcase was the first time since the 360 era where I actually was excited for what Xbox has. I already own a paper weight Xbox Series X, but now it’s looking like it’s time to blow the 3 inch layer of dust off it and give it some loving.
What Xbox needs to do now is be consistent with the releases. Don’t let this be a one time thing and then back the the poultry exclusives and typical Forza, Halo, and whatever else they just release. If they can do that I honestly believe they can rebuild the brand and possibly get it back to how it was when the 360 was alive.
I agree with article and I believe sony will follow suit budgets to big development times to long none can sustain this forever and sony won't be able to either
I also think in 20 years we are going to look back and say "Remember when we used to have to buy a game publishers box to put under your TV in order to play their games?"
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
Phil wasn't in charge during that era. And when he got his spot he ended that.
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 .
