Phil Spencer shared his thoughts on the console race in a recent interview, but his comments don't ring true to Xbox's own strategy.
Interview with Isabella Inchbald, Actress for (Indika) in Indika which is an emotional, thought provoking journey through a nun's tale in questioning her religion.
PlayStation legend Mark Cerny discusses PS5, the challenges of making consoles, and his 42-year games industry career
Well... they used to design their own chips. Emotion Engine, Cell, RSX... when they switched to using X86 based chips is now more akin to low-mid cost PCs than before. It may not look like a PC but it pretty much is one. I'd bet it could do productivity stuff just fine if they allowed it to.
Yah, hence the majority of the PS5’s hardware investment going towards an SSD instead of a GPU.
There are countless custom pc gaming rigs out there, and I bet none of them took an SSD-centric approach to their design, like the ps5 did.
I can see where he’s coming from re ps5 not just being a box with parts like a pc. They must also spend an awful lot on r & d just to design the thing so it has aesthetic appeal and typical Japanese with some sort of Philosopy behind the design. Would also think other factors around the custom airflow and the like would cost a lot given that it’s not a standard box shape
Recently Gareth at Skewed and Reviewed spoke with Soham Jaiswal, CEO, SD Games about the pending Eternal Damnation game. The game is a hybrid of RPG and RTS and cast players as a Spider.
Phil said they lost the most important generation with Xbox One when the shift to digital started. Those lost customers moved to PlayStation and making great games won’t make people sell their PS5 and buy an Xbox. That’s just not how it works.
That's not what he said. He didn't say they wouldn't sell more Xbox systems, he said they wouldn't overtake PlayStation. Just look at Nintendo. They've consistently made top quality exclusives and they could never really compete without doing something drastically different. Handhelds, motion controls, and a hybrid console like the Switch. Incredible games were never enough for even Nintendo to compete with PlayStation in terms of home consoles. It's like trying to overtake Nintendo in the handheld market.
This is why Xbox tried so hard to make the Kinect a thing, so they'd have some kind of USP that might draw people in to their ecosystem. But that was a failure. PlayStation is so engrained in the console market that making great games literally isn't enough to pull the majority of gamers away. You need a USP, you need something PlayStation doesn't have. Xbox sort of had that for a while with Game Pass but they didn't have a consistent output of great games. That would have been their best chance but they shot themselves in the foot that generation.
So first Xbox needs to get their game dev situation figured out and put out a consistent stream of high quality games. But once they do that they'll still need a USP. Nintendo has hybrids and Sony has VR. What could Xbox actually do that would set them apart and pull people in?
I think he said this to lower the bar for future expectations. I've said it time and time again: Microsoft has ZERO long-term interest in being a hardware or game developer. They want only to be a subscription/streaming storefront, siphoning their 30% from everyone else's effort. They're doing as little as possible every step of the way, hoping eventually to meet a critical mass of subscribers. They are not a gaming or entertainment company; they are a software-as-a-service conglomerate. They want to distribute not develop! They jettisoned all their studios and abandoned all their acquired gaming IP at the end of the Xbox 360 era because they thought they could ride on the productivity of third-party releases and their vocal and loyal fanbase. They probably had an initial goal of 10 years to sink their claws into the industry before attempting to push their service agenda to the forefront via the Xbox One DRM and Xbox Marketplace.
More disingenious nonsense excuses from Spencer.
When PS3 was being trounced by 360, Sony took the big decision to push first class games, hit after hit. PS3 overtook 360 in the final straight after being behind almost the entire generation.
Digital libraries? I gave up my LARGE Rock Band library on Xbox to get a PS4 and continue gaming on there as frankly the Xbone was rubbish.
But then Xbone also introduced backwards compatibility, something the PS4 could not do until it tried with PSNow (and failed realistically). So all that digital investment he speaks of as a reason they have lost is a load of rubbish, narrative changing.
Finally, he says even if Starfield is 11/10, it won't persuade people to sell their PS5 for a Xbox SX. That's not the point, if Starfield is that great then people will BUY a Xbox SX whilst keeping their PS5 too.
I remember seeing queues of people buying 360s with Bioshock when that was released in London (when I bought my copy).
Phil Spencer lies, and he cannot or will not take responsibility for the failures he has overseen.
He's buried Xbox.