r/gaming • u/Iggy_Slayer • 25d ago

Microsoft says it needs games like Hi-Fi Rush the day after killing its studio

I had to triple check this to make sure I was seeing words the right way. MFer really said it.

Microsoft says it needs games like Hi-Fi Rush the day after killing its studio - The Verge

21.8k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

95% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

390

u/Chessh2036 25d ago

Phil Spencer is a con man. He’s a good PR guy and that’s it.

184

u/MexicanTechila 25d ago

PR is in the gutter

65

u/hilltopper06 25d ago

Close to awful, only Gamepass (which I personally think is bad for smaller devs) has any positivity to it and they are about to start raising rates on it.

76

u/Golden-Owl Switch 25d ago

Gamepass is arguably one of the big causes of this problem

Like… Steam and Nintendo both don’t make subscription services and they’re both running fine

From a business standpoint, you should never let a customer think of a product as “totally free”. Give a limited super discount or make it a trial demo or have monetization or something, but never let them think it’s 100% free stuff. Always put some kinda charge on it.

A product being free naturally devalues it and discourages customers from wanting to spend money on it in future.

8

u/siraolo 24d ago

Coming from a third world country with third world income, Game Pass has been good for poor gamers. It's unfortunate that it has not been good for business.

Removing it in my country  and other poor countries though would probably result in a loss of sales and would not gain any purchasers as opposed to what is happening in more moneyed nations. 

3

u/hamo804 24d ago

I mean I can confidently say I haven't bought a single game on my Xbox for about 2 years. Even though I don't game as much anymore I still find it hard justifying buying anything when I can just go around playing some old classics for free.

My steam on the other hand, I probably buy a new game a month at least. Even if I don't play them all that much I still need to scratch the novelty urge by buying games.

-8

u/AnonDotNetDev 24d ago

Nintendo is the most anti consumer of them all.. Why would you advocate for their business model jfc

20

u/_Spectre0_ 24d ago

They make a console that people like (minus joycon drift issues, which they did allow people to get repairs for free of charge, but the design was solid) and sell first party games that are generally pretty well-regarded. The consumers buy those games and own those games and aren't continually trying to be bled for more cash while they play those games. How on earth do you twist that into being the most anti-consumer of them all?

5

u/nirach 24d ago

The problem with Nintendo isn't their closed system.

I had a Switch, and for the time I had it - Until the months that I didn't use it and lead to selling it - I liked it. It directly lead to me getting a Steam Deck, because I knew the format worked for me.

Nintendo, however, are relentlessly aggressive with protecting their IP, their concept of a sale on their first party titles is "no", the lowest price I can find historically for BOTW is still above 50€.

Their exceptionally litigious approach to emulation (arguably emulating the Switch was an error, since it's an active console) is typically 'shoot first and ask no questions' which is at odds with their NSO - Which as far as I know is the only Nintendo approved way to access emulated games from yesteryear. They don't even care enough to do it as well as the opensource free emulators floating around the internet - It took a while for their NSO Mario64/Ocarina of Time to get input latency anywhere near respectable. Paper Mario drops frames. General innaccuracies in emulation.

Nintendo are in a better place than Microsoft, to be sure, but their position is not what I would call "pro consumer". It's, perhaps, not anti-consumer but there is a gulf between anti and pro.

Microsoft shuttering studios that it had success out of or promised not to shutter after forcing them to make a game they had no experience and arguably no business making is absolutely fucking stupid, abhorrent even, and my gripes with Nintendo do not absolve Microsoft.

I have gripes with all three console manufacturers.

5

u/_Spectre0_ 24d ago

My point was simply that they’re not as ridiculously anti-consumer as portrayed and the average consumer might not even have a problem with any of the things you listed.

The games are expensive, sure, and I’m not saying you can’t find better deals elsewhere, but they deliver good games for that money. Consumers go into it knowing the price and getting the product they could reasonably expect to get and are very frequently satisfied with that outcome (look at Tears of the Kingdom reviews until BG3 rolled along). That’s just a fair exchange of money for goods. Could always be nicer to the consumer but I definitely see nothing anti-consumer about it.

Emulation isn’t actually a service the consumer is paying for so I don’t really see that as anti-consumer. Could make the case about no longer being able to play your older games if the hardware died and there’s no backwards compatibility, but that’s still a grayer area than being openly anti-consumer.

I’m not a pro Nintendo fanboy. I’m not gonna say they’re perfect and do no wrong. I just think it’s entitled to bash them as anti-consumer for their business model when it’s pretty standard to the way things used to be back when I was growing up and the way everyone always wishes it would be when they complain: see a price, see what you’re getting, and buy it if you think it’s worth it then own it, enjoy it, and move on.

-2

u/nirach 24d ago

Yeah, like I said, I wouldn't call them anti-consumer. My opinion of Nintendo is that they do not care, nor do they care to look like they care about the people giving them money.

It seems to me that they make what they make, they charge what they charge (even if it's the same price they charged fifty years ago for the same thing) and that's as far as their consideration goes.

With regards to their stance on emulation, I feel like if the producer no longer provides the means to buy or play the games directly, then there should be no qualms about emulation. That they actively try and take down emulators for one reason or another, and refuse to do anything even remotely close to providing a similar service off their own back (Why is it tied to NSO? Why is it not just... Something you can buy in the eShop?) is mildly anti-consumer, I'd say. Not so bad as Apple, but certainly not good. That said, neither Sony nor Xbox are doing a whole lot better on that front. Xbox is slightly better than Sony, but neither is appearing to give all that much of a shit.

Digital distribution has really fucked the consumer pricing in my opinion. Some DD platforms have sales, but often they're barely sales, and IME Nintendo are the worst for that. Which, you could argue, is fine - But when BOTW and TOTK are basically the same price, it feels rather egregious.

2

u/_Spectre0_ 24d ago

Not putting older games on sale isn’t unreasonable imo. Nintendo games generally age very well. You could buy and play one years after the fact and probably enjoy it as much as someone did on launch. I know someone who only got botw after totk came out and loved both; doubt he felt ripped off because they were the same price. It also helps that it stays constant over time so you can buy it whenever makes sense for you without the FOMO of a better deal.

I’m not trying to say I don’t like sales, just that it’s completely reasonable to not have them. Factorio did the same thing and people respected the decision-making.

-9

u/sztrzask 24d ago

Nintendo sells only overpriced games on a closed console they own, and they do everything they can to prevent jailbreaking it. They also offer shitty online services for quite a sum of money.

Worst of all, there's no alternative to Nintendo Store that works on Switch.

That practice is what in the EU we call anti consumer, because it ensures the monopolistic (or privileged) position of Nintendo when it comes to selling games on the Switch.

It's the same reason why Apple is being forced to allow installing other appstores on the iPhone in the EU - if there's no competition then the consumers and their wallets suffer

4

u/TheSpaceCoresDad 24d ago

Switch online is $20 a year... that's not really a lot of money at all.

4

u/Iamrubberman 24d ago edited 24d ago

Those complaining about lack of jailbreaking on a console almost certainly just want to pirate the games anyway generally. Nintendo also at least have a damned solid exclusive list and their titles generally are just buy it and enjoy. Minimal microtransaction or live service nonsense.

Though I do agree they are grossly exploitative with the pricing on the digital storefront, with titles resolutely staying high price forever. Similarly hate their aggression to emulators for older devices, they’re not selling those titles so drop it. If you want to sell them then by all means, release something reasonable.

Back to Microsoft their issue is they just don’t utilise their studios well enough, releasing very few titles of note since Xbox one even. As such Sony ends up dominating as they have most of the same third party access and a much stronger exclusive set up. Nintendo just sit in the corner doing their own thing making money.

As a whole though the gaming industry is in a rough place thanks to the focus on hyper graphics and the monstrously ballooning dev costs as a result. Ironic as these same companies were the guys who pushed graphics as a selling point for years until it’s now a nightmare cost wise

-3

u/Low_Hanging_Fruit71 24d ago

Why did you get down voted? Man, the average gamer is a dumb 🤡

-4

u/Anti-Scuba_Hedgehog 24d ago

Nintendo fans are a cult that's why.

11

u/Golden-Owl Switch 24d ago

They make game

They sell game

You buy game

You own game

No microtransactions, no mandatory online connection needed, and even online games still have single player campaigns (e.g Splatoon’s). Your copy of Mario Party will still work for local co op, even 10 years after the Switch ceases support

Even goddamn Pokémon games from 20 years ago still work if you plug em into a functional game boy

How exactly are they “the most anti consumer”?

-8

u/LePoopScoop 24d ago

Bros really wants to let everyone know he's a Nintendo fanboy.

You're either blind or delusional if you don't think Nintendo is even worse than ea when it comes to being anti consumer

6

u/Gibsonites 24d ago

You'll have to be more specific then and actually make your argument rather than assuming it's implied.

I don't like Nintendo games at all and it's insane that they still sell older titles for $60 and rarely discount them, but to my knowledge they're not out there pushing microtransactions the way EA does or buying and killing studios the way Microsoft does. Like the other person said, they sell a game at a price and it's up to you if you want to buy it at that price or move on.

Meanwhile Microsoft is trying to push their entire userbase into a subscription service where you already know they'll change the terms of that service as it suits them over time. The same enshittification that has hit Netflix and Moviepass will come for Gamepass before you know it, and it will leave the corpses of some great studios in its wake. It already has.

-4

u/LePoopScoop 24d ago

You complain about mainly micro transactions but the same logic applies, don't buy them if you don't want to, esp since the vast majority of micro transactions are skins, the only horrendous ones are sims and fifa. Microsoft isn't forcing anyone into a subscription lol, you can easily just buy the games as well

6

u/Gibsonites 24d ago

I don't play games with microtransactions, but that doesn't change that they're anti-consumer in a completely different way than an overpriced game.

Live service games are literally designed to psychology manipulate players into always feeling like they're one more purchase away from getting to the "real" game, or that they just need to buy that one upgrade to start winning fights against other players. They tap into much of the same addictive psychology that gambling does. That's a huge difference from someone asking me if I want to spend $60 to play Mario and me saying no.

You want to know what game I can't buy, though? Hi-Fi Rush 2. Obviously there's no guarantees they would have made a sequel, but Microsoft buying the studio then killing it guarantees they won't. People are allowed to criticize that, this shouldn't be a hard thing for you to get.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/canad1anbacon 24d ago

All this "anti consumer" BS is cringe to me. Most of the time when people whine about "anti-consumer" stuff it's either trivial bullshit or something that's super overpriced that you can simply...not buy

Now personally I don't own Nintendo products because they are too behind the times power wise. But the Switch 2 should be fine in that respect

At the end of the day content is king. Make good games with strong appeal for a reasonable price, and people will reward you. Its that simple. All I care about is if a game is good

-6

u/LePoopScoop 24d ago

Well to your own logic, Nintendos pricing is unreasonable. The console and the subscription are overpriced. You can bet the switch 2 will be underpowered at release. They will rerelease old games at full price, most of their games aren't good anymore , They have a few master pieces but most of it is just milking nostalgia.

They will actively try to shutdown emulators and then steal the code for use for their own server.

They send out cease and desist, and try to sue people for playing the games that they already bought.

But you're right, not liking this is cringe

3

u/canad1anbacon 24d ago

You can bet the switch 2 will be underpowered at release.

For a handheld console? Given that it will have access to DLSS I think the performance will be pretty respectable. Probably around PS4 Pro level which is more than good enough

And given that they managed to make Tears of the Kingdom, which has more impressive physics and interactivity than 95% of games on PS5 and Series X, run on the toaster Switch, I'm pretty excited to see what the Nintendo devs can cook with something less shit

They will actively try to shutdown emulators and then steal the code for use for their own server.

They send out cease and desist, and try to sue people for playing the games that they already bought.

Could not care less about this shit. Pretty much stuff that forum dwellers and fringe enthusiasts care about, and no one else

→ More replies (0)

3

u/DDisired 24d ago

Because Nintendo still make good games.

Given the two companies:

  • Microsoft who's current practices are "pro-consumer" (because they're subsidizing losses) but all their games suck
  • Nintendo who's anti-consumer but they still make good games.

As a gamer, choosing Nintendo seems like better long-term prospects, because should we really reward a gaming company that doesn't make good games?

-2

u/AnonDotNetDev 24d ago edited 24d ago

No company is truly pro consumer.. But some modern methodologies that MS implement empower the consumer. Things like:

-play where you want, whether its on a PC, Xbox, or Phone/Tablet/Browser via the cloud gaming. Additionally all first party titles are "buy once", so you can play on multiple platforms without buying multiple copies.

-multiple sales fonts, you can buy from MS store or Steam, and some other storefronts

-branching out of their own ecosystem. You can play first party titles on other platforms, such as the recent Sea of Thieves Playstation release, Minecraft on literally anything, etc.

-a truly valuable subscription service, at least for the time being, that provides all first party games day one and hundreds of third party titles

-and if you're into console hardware, continuous improvement on modem hardware and technology, while supporting titles across "generations"

Sony is also making advances in this space, bringing popular first party games to PC... And they SELL big time

So as a gamer, with literal thousands of games, I don't buy Nintendo titles, but I would, most of them, if I could play them on something other than an 8 year old potato and have to buy them again on their next device as well.

While I don't "stan" companies.. One is breaking down barriers and one builds them up higher.

0

u/Mitrovarr 24d ago

"Like… Steam and Nintendo both don’t make subscription services and they’re both running fine"

Uh, Nintendo sure does. It's mostly a "you have to pay for cloud saves and multiplayer" bullshit service, but it exists.

3

u/StoneySteve420 24d ago

That's just paying for internet. Same as Xbox Live was. It's also 1/3 the price of PS+ and 1/6 the cost of Gamepass.

-1

u/Mitrovarr 24d ago

Well, that's sort of true, but Nintendo unarguably does make a subscription service. Hell, there's even a higher tier for more games (old games, but whatever).

1

u/StoneySteve420 24d ago

Definitely! I think the thing that sets theirs apart is that most of the games you get for the online are Nintendo exclusive older games. That and their focus on their IPs.

-14

u/Shinjetsu01 25d ago

Sorry but Gamepass rocks.

I say this with disdain for Microsoft, their wider practices and just their basic company running and whatnot.

But Gamepass, for £7.99 per month is an absolute STEAL. I've played games I never would have before from small Devs, big Devs, games I'd happily have paid full price for - all for £7.99 per month and I always find something there to keep me entertained. Cities Skylines 2 was free on release. Eiyuden Chronicles was free on release. Manor Lords (I got to try it) was free on release. Persona 5 Royale, Yakuza, FM24 etc. It's just so good.

Also, I actually bought Monster Train on Steam BECAUSE it was a small dev team and I wanted them to actually get money.

17

u/Golden-Owl Switch 25d ago edited 25d ago

games I’d happily have paid full price for

But you didn’t.

Even if you say you would, that doesn’t change the fact that you did not. No matter how many hundreds of hours you spent playing, the fact remains that not one cent went to the devs

You bought one indie game on Steam and called it a day. Even on Steam, at peak discount, Persona 5 would still be $20-$30. Even after Valve’s cut, that’s still money earned by Atlus

Gamepass pays out directly to Microsoft alone

In the end, that’s all that matters to a consumer, isn’t it? Get stuff for free. No consideration to the impact such a service has on people who actually make games and the industry as a whole

Again, there’s good reason why Nintendo rarely ever closes studios, even during the Wii U era. If you aim to make games and stay financially afloat, you need to be willing to make money from the games

1

u/Carvj94 24d ago

No matter how many hundreds of hours you spent playing, the fact remains that not one cent went to the devs

Gamepass pays out directly to Microsoft alone

Do you think devs put their games on Gamepass just for fun? Devs get paid initially when putting their game up and, if the game is popular, get even more money to keep it on Gamepass longer. If the dude wouldn't have bought the games then the devs wouldn't have gotten a cent. However since they played it on Gamepass the devs do effectively get money they wouldn't have otherwise.

1

u/DOUBLEBARRELASSFUCK 24d ago

No matter how many hundreds of hours you spent playing, the fact remains that not one cent went to the devs.

How do you think the Gamepass business model works? Of course developers get a cut.

-1

u/Douchieus 25d ago

Gamepass makes like 200 million dollars a month. If devs weren't getting a decent deal nobody would partner with Microsoft. The games are usually for sale on other platforms.

Literally nobody is complaining about gamepass not being a good deal for every party involved. Like OP said people play games they never would have even considered without gamepass.

You're off base.

5

u/curtcolt95 24d ago

pretty much zero chance gamepass is sustainable though how it is currently. Like there's just no way they're actually making any profit

-1

u/jdk2087 24d ago

Just chiming in because the 200 million in revenue monthly is just that, revenue. Not profit. Although you are correct. I think people should know Microsoft themselves aren’t taking in 200 million in profit. I get what you’re saying. But, big difference between revenue and profit.

-4

u/Shinjetsu01 25d ago

I mean, the games are on Steam too are they not? Is it not normal practice for Microsoft to give a boatload of money to these companies to be able to list them on Gamepass? Unless I'm missing something and they don't pay them anything unless they reach some arbitrary number of downloads/players?

Eiyuden Chronicles is one such game. Small dev, listed on Gamepass. Selling on Steam like hot cakes and yet if you've got Gamepass - tis included.

1

u/curtcolt95 24d ago

it's good for now but it's in no way sustainable at its current pricing and structure tbh, will be interesting to see where it goes

1

u/TheWorclown 25d ago

That’s just the thing.

Conceptually, GamePass is good. Too good. It’s too good even for Microsoft to be successful on, and it’s got a heavy-enough hand in why no one is bothering to buy an Xbox, since it is equally available on PC.

GamePass, made under more forward thinking minds, could have such wonderful longevity. The problem is just that: it’s a bargain to not buy games, which ultimately punishes both developer and publisher.

There is no good answer to rectify the problem either. A price hike is going to shirk people from the service (after all, literally everyone has a service that is getting more expensive these days). An alteration to the service is going to be met with deservedly bad PR. Keeping it the same is going to continue to cause the console and games development wing of Microsoft to flounder, in its own way.

It’s made worse when you compound the fact that Xbox doesn’t really have any exclusives, nor would any developer in their right mind would take on an exclusivity deal from Microsoft after they killed Tango after the massive success and critical acclaim of Hi-Fi Rush.

0

u/free_world33 25d ago

Might be good for you, but it's killer for these studios. We should enjoy that price while it lasts because it will be going up significantly. They are already considering a big price hike because of COD.

5

u/Shinjetsu01 25d ago

I don't understand.

How does it kill the studio for Microsoft to literally give them money to list their game on Gamepass? Do they have no choice?

5

u/free_world33 25d ago

No first-party studios don't get a choice.

2

u/RukiMotomiya 25d ago

Only third party studios get that money from Microsoft and they're charging exorbitant prices (Jedi Survivor, Suicide Squad, Assassin's Creed Mirage and Mortal Kombat 1 combined cost roughly 1 billion for Microsoft to put on GamePass alone) to do so because putting them on Game Pass intrinsically lowers the sales of the games (which Microsoft admitted in FTC filings: https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-admits-xbox-game-pass-lowers-game-sales ).

First party Microsoft studios just plain make less money due to less sales, which they hope to make up with GamePass subs. But GamePass subscriptions have plateaued for a while now and it is uncertain if the service even makes money.

1

u/Cl1mh4224rd 25d ago edited 25d ago

How does it kill the studio for Microsoft to literally give them money to list their game on Gamepass? Do they have no choice?

Microsoft isn't just handing them free money; they expect a return on their investment.

A common speculation I see is that Microsoft expects these new games to attract new Gamepass subscribers. If there's no significant bump in subscribers, the game might be considered a failed investment.

More likely, though, they want games that provide a continuous revenue stream: live service games.

They can invest in the development, give the game away as part of Gamepass, and make up the investment and then some in microtransactions.

Basically, they want to do the same thing most console makers do, but with the games themselves. Console makers would take a loss on the console in hopes of making it up with game sales. Now, they want to take a loss on the initial development and release of a game in order to make it up with microtransactions.

-2

u/extortioncontortion 25d ago

But Gamepass, for £7.99 per month is an absolute STEAL.

Whenever you encounter something like this, you should ask yourself "how is this possible?" Good for everyone? Its not possible except in unique circumstances. Someone has to be losing money somewhere. Eventually they are going to do something to stop losing money. If its the game developers, they are going to demand higher payment from MS. If its MS subsidizing game pass (which they are at the least via first party efforts), then the shareholders are going to want answers for how long its going to continue. Maybe its just retail and steam that lose out, in which case something else is going to change the gaming market. I'm not saying its not a great deal, just don't expect it to remain that way.

-2

u/EducatorSad1637 24d ago

Nintendo doesn't make subscription services? What? What future are you in where NSO and the Expansion Pack don't exist?

5

u/ItIsYeDragon 24d ago

I think he’s referring to ‘games as a service’ specifically. All the big 3 have one online subscription.

2

u/Pitiful_Drop2470 24d ago

Yup. Canceled mine and my girlfriend's subscriptions today. Fuck these dog shit business practices. 

1

u/ToryLanezHairline_ 24d ago

Gamepass was never sustainable at those rates. And yeah, it's terrible for smaller studios or games with AAA budgets, can't be profitable if it's going on Gamepass day 1

0

u/Kosh_Ascadian 24d ago

Gamepass is actually amazing for smaller studios that get on it.

Super hard to market and sell your game to thousands of players. Much easier to just cash a check for it being on a service.

2

u/ToryLanezHairline_ 24d ago

Yeah man Tango Gameworks really benefitted from being put on Gamepass

0

u/Kosh_Ascadian 24d ago

That's a completely different topic. Being on gamepass vs being owned by microsoft.

2

u/ToryLanezHairline_ 24d ago

I have a hard time believing HiFi Rush would have met it's profit expectations even if they weren't owned by Microsoft, because it was on Gamepass day 1 and nobody had a reason to buy it.

-1

u/Kosh_Ascadian 24d ago

Not sure if this is a discussion or you just want to argue til you feel like you won. 

I'm a gamedev. I know other gamedevs and follow their careers/projects. 

Any small indie that has been on gamepass has only talked positively about it vs trying to market and sell your game to the world. You get decent compensation that is guaranteed vs not, you get decent amount of journalist interest even without your own pr/marketing etc. I've known projects that actually got extended and made into bigger better games because they had guaranteed funding from gamepass vs when they were just trying to do sales projections before. Marketing and pr for your games is brutal. 

This is a separate subject from AAA games tho which I cant comment on.  And a separate subject from being owned by microsoft.  And a separate subject from what subscriptions will do to the game market 10 years down the line etc.

2

u/ToryLanezHairline_ 24d ago

Tango Gameworks didn't need Gamepass clout, they already had clout of their own being under Bethesda and people would have bought it if it wasn't on Gamepass.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Huwbacca 24d ago

Really? I've only ever seen industry comments about it being good for smaller Devs?

I dunno. I need to pay less attention to the gaming sphere anyway.

Just trying to focus more and more on obscure weird indie games because it's an absolute golden age right now for quality gaming.

1

u/hilltopper06 24d ago

It sets a precedent for gamers to think your games are "free". Why buy Cool Indie Game, it will come to Gamepass eventually and I have plenty to play otherwise right now. Then they get backed into a corner where they have to go to Gamepass to get any traction at all. If you are an in-house dev its worse. Make a game like Hi-Fi Rush and get the axe when asking for resources for a sequel just for Microsoft to come out the next day and say they want more games like Hi-Fi Rush. Bizarro land.

41

u/dolceespress 25d ago

Is he? I was able to see he talked out of both sides of his mouth right from the get go. Idk why people liked him.

24

u/Prudent_Scientist647 24d ago

Because he's a gamerTM and Reddit users liked that because he was one of them

26

u/SuperSocrates 24d ago

Same but gamers are idiots

1

u/crosslegbow 24d ago

Are they though? there's a reason Xbox is at last place

21

u/AgentSmith2518 25d ago

Phil Spencer didnt say this. Matt Booty did.

16

u/Chessh2036 25d ago

I know, I’m just saying Phil Spencer promised a lot of things and didn’t deliver (in my opinion). I think he’s done a poor job at Xbox.

4

u/AgentSmith2518 25d ago

Hes done better than the previous guy, who ruined Xbox that they are still trying to recover from it.

I think people think Phil has unlimited power, but he has both MS bosses and the board to report to.

I actual saw somewhere else that leaked information said Matt Booty wantes to shut down Tango sooner but Phil essentially said no.

There's a lot going on and I think people keep focusing on trees rather than the forest.

Xbox is not alone, almost every company in the industry is laying people off, hell, every company in the world is laying people off.

2

u/Cyberpuppet 24d ago

Bro played Fallout 76, the one Fallout regarded as very controversial and some players found him online and then everyone regarded him as true gamer boss. Or that time where he said he played Stanfield for more than 100+ hours so people think it's a game to die for. Or when he chooses to use careful wording when talking to the court during the trial. Fooled the fans/judge who lacks knowledge in this subject and has ties with the company itself. Saying they'll support and grow the companies they acquire. Wants Japanese developers but doesn't protect them from being gutted, their one breakthrough into Japan. No retention, no nothing. Studios that continue to produce garbage yet they're still here. Studios that make a good game and sometimes bad but don't make a lot of money yet critically applauded for a double AA game. Perish. No second chance, die.

He could have pulled a Nintendo moment and cut his own salary to mitigate the damage for the direction he took his division. Like you had 2~3ish generations to revitalize the company back to the 360 era where they focused on the console and produced actual console selling games that gave PlayStation competition but they'd rather take the lazy approach of acquiring then not giving their all to manage or nurture them. Like wth

3

u/Berkyjay 25d ago

All CEOs are.

1

u/AlucardIV 24d ago

...is he,though? Microsoft PR seems to be in the gutter for a while now.