Phil Spencer: single player narrative focused games are too risky, supports microtransactions

[Satoshi Ookami]

That guy is a joke.

And MS is still surprised Xbox division is not generating profit when they put someone like this in charge.

 

You did it again, Phil Spencer. 

[Rick_Sanchez]

Dear Phil Spencer,

 

No, just no

 

Sincerely,

Gamers everywhere

[Kevvik]

I like some multiplayer though primarily on PC platform.  Was a Guild Wars fan from launch.  I played it until GW2 came out.  Hardcore at launch and steady for almost 2 years.

 

What killed me?  The constant push towards the microtransaction.  Any strategy that was even minimally beneficial to the player being able to build up gold would get nerfed.  Anything where you could manage to build up +rare mats quickly, nerfed.   All about getting you to buy gems with cash to purchase skins or trade them for gold because they didn't want you to be able to accumulate at a reasonable rate by in-game play. 

 

Other than helping my wife/kids/friends on specific tasks when they play, I don't play. I don't think I've logged in a dozen times in the past 1.5-2 yrs after daily play for almost the first 2 yrs.

 

I have reverted to almost entirely a single player existence other than the odd bit of gameplay here/there.  Microtransactions may pay the bills but they kill gaming.

[yellowwindow7]

Phil Spencer just wanted the entire gaming industry to go and approved on his vision and once everyone go with his weird ideas including Sony and Nintendo then this is the time when Xbox will be back on the map again!

 

really Phil? you want single player games to die? *face palm*

guess he couldn't keep up with Sony and Nintendo's Single Player experienced games and quality and so he wanted to get rid of those type of games.

 

if that happen then that will be the day i'm logging off the entire gaming for good, i'm not a huge fan of online only games, even if you check my trophies list the majority of my games is the one that focuses heavily on single player experience whether it's an AAA games or Indie's, not to mention, online gaming on the ps4 required to pay for a subscription that i'm still not a fan of.

[Remilia Scarlet]

I thought Phil Spencer was cool. I thought wrong.

[NullRay85]

As much as I admire the guy, I disagree with both of his statements.

 

While I occasionally play multiplayer-based games, I find it hard to move from single-player games. As for micro-transactions... just no... 

Edited April 29, 2017 by NullRay85

[Beyondthegrave07]

Let me be the first to say that I'd much rather have a SP game only than MP game only.

 

I think micro-transactions can be a good thing, but most of the time, it's pay to win. It should be used more for costumes or skins or little added extras like that IMO. Nothing that actually affects the gameplay itself.

 

So yeah Phil, I disagree.

[BlazingCat83]

This is coming from the same guy who thought canceling Scalebound was good for X1 gamers...he's a fucking dumbass.

[Chirithy84]

Somehow I can not take this gentleman spencer seriously; In which he does and says.

[Milktastrophe]

In the future where they no longer have single player games and it's all multiplayer, as long as I can play those multiplayer games alone without any other real human players, then that future is fine with me.

[Undead Wolf]

Remember when people used to praise Phil Spencer? Yeah, look how that one turned out. Sure, he's no Don Mattrick, but this "gamers first" thing he supposedly stands for is total bullshit. His comments on singleplayer games just sounds like an excuse as to why there's a lack of any meaningful singleplayer exclusives on Xbox. Sony and even Nintendo to some extent are putting Xbox to shame on that front. That's no secret.

 

As for microtransactions, they are the cancer of this industry. What he's basically saying here is that "We can't get away with putting microtransactions in singleplayer games because people would get mad. People are a lot more accepting of microtransactions in multiplayer games though, so that's where we'll be focusing our attention on from now on. You can't rip your customers off as much in singleplayer games, so as far as we're concerned, they're dead."

 

Microtransactions are unacceptable in full-priced retail games. If you're already charging $60 for a game, shoehorning in microtransactions is done out of pure greed. End of discussion.

[ratchetdude231]

He isn't necessarily wrong on the single player comments. I mostly play single player games, but these MMO style games are thriving this generation. Destiny, Division, Rainbow 6 Siege, Battlefield 1, have all been doing incredibly well and have generated tons of money.

 

In regards to micro-transactions honestly the way I look at it is I would rather games have micro-transactions over DLC and season passes which just fragment the playerbase. There are games such as Cod that have a  50 dollars for a season pass, and then go on to add micro-transactions which are incredibly pay to win but there are also games like Overwatch which do DLC fantastically. 

 

Publishers need to choose between season passes or Micro-transactions. They can't have both, and I'm very happy that EA for example has basically said they are done with season passes when it comes to their future multiplayer centric titles. Battlefront 2 won't have a season pass, but will likely have micro-transactions and frankly I want all multiplayer games to adopt this business model. 

 

In regards to single player games having micro-transactions well that's complete fucking bullshit frankly. We have seen EA dabble a bit with that last gen and it ended terribly for them. Multiplayer games however I see no problem with it as long as there also isn't a season pass and map packs.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2017 by Ratchet

[Satoshi Ookami]

15 minutes ago, Undead Wolf said:

Remember when people used to praise Phil Spencer?

Someone did?

 

15 minutes ago, Undead Wolf said:

You can't rip your customers off as much in singleplayer games

Because players of singleplayer games are not idiots  

 

2 minutes ago, Ratchet said:

They can't have both,

Ubisoft says hi.

[ratchetdude231]

Just now, Satoshi Ookami said:

Someone did?

 

Because players of singleplayer games are not idiots  

 

Ubisoft says hi.

And so does Activision lol. Ubisoft and Activision are weird. On the one hand Ubisoft has Rainbow 6 which has all maps and new characters free, and on the other hand there is the division which has a season pass, and Micro-transactions I believe.

 

Same thing with Activision, they have Cod which has a fucking awful business model, and then there is Overwatch. 

[madbuk]

2 minutes ago, Ratchet said:

And so does Activision lol. Ubisoft and Activision are weird. On the one hand Ubisoft has Rainbow 6 which has all maps and new characters free, and on the other hand there is the division which has a season pass, and Micro-transactions I believe.

 

Same thing with Activision, they have Cod which has a fucking awful business model, and then there is Overwatch. 

CoD and Overwatch weren't made by the same people. Maybe Activision gives their devs some leeway in regards to implementing microtransactions.

[ratchetdude231]

Just now, madbuk said:

CoD and Overwatch weren't made by the same people. Maybe Activision gives their devs some leeway in regards to implementing microtransactions.

I know that, but still it's very strange. I highly doubt Activision gives their devs the option to choose how to implement micro-transactions. When Black Ops 3 came out Micro-transactions were purely cosmetic, and then right after the first map pack was released, a leak came out that basically said Treyarch was originally planning on having 3 new weapons in the first map pack, but then they got orders from Activision to put them in supply drops. The supply drops were purely RNG based and when the weapons where added in players had a 0.2 percent chance of getting a new weapon which essentially made it so that you had to pay money to get them.

 

I suspect because Blizzard is making Activision a boatload of money they don't really care what Blizzard does. Cod on the other hand is a sinking ship, and Activision knows that and probably wants to milk the franchise as much as possible. 

 

What I'm basically saying though is that there are developers who handle DLC and Micro-transactions incredibly well. Overwatch has a really good business model were basically all map, and new characters are free, but there are also micro-transactions that are purely cosmetic. Titanfall 2 has a similar system, Mass Effect Andromeda is also doing something similar, and it looks like Battlefront 2 will be doing the same thing. This should be the business model for all future multiplayer shooters. Give out all future maps for free, but have microtransactions on the side that are purely cosmetic. 

 

CS GO and League of Legends do it really well too. 

[DrakeHellsing]

9 hours ago, snakebit10 said:

I am still mostly a SP person. I grew on Sp games and still enjoy them the most. I can's say I would stop gaming without SP but I wouldn't game as much.

Same here, I prefer games that are Single Player myself.  I mean, if that stops happening, then I'll have time to do other things for sure... cause I'm not a fan of MP only games myself.

[snakebit10]

4 minutes ago, DrakeHellsing said:

Same here, I prefer games that are Single Player myself.  I mean, if that stops happening, then I'll have time to do other things for sure... cause I'm not a fan of MP only games myself.

 

Agreed. I'll make the exception sometimes on MP only games. Example. Plants vs. Zombies Garden Warfare was a very fun game. If it is a game I really want to platinum then I'll do the mp requirements but I don't just want to play MP all the time.

[DrakeHellsing]

2 minutes ago, snakebit10 said:

 

Agreed. I'll make the exception sometimes on MP only games. Example. Plants vs. Zombies Garden Warfare was a very fun game. If it is a game I really want to platinum then I'll do the mp requirements but I don't just want to play MP all the time.

Yup, same here, such as that PlayStation All Stars, I did the MP on that for the platinum, but most of the time, I stay away from the MP.  But there are some games I'd probably play... maybe, depends if they're interesting or not.  I prefer a story with my game actually.

[RangyRV]

9 hours ago, harsly said:

The day SP becomes irrelevant is the day I stop gaming.

Same. But a coop game can be fun too if you play with someone you know, not with random people.

[Nihiris-]

Really used to like Phil...until I realized he says the same shit every single year (especially on Twitter) and nothing changes for the Xbox brand as far as games go. It's getting to the point where I think that MS is using him for PR while calling the shots over him. Really questioning the length of Phil's control over the brand.

 

They have some fantastic ideas over at Xbox with the features they put into the console and such, but it boggles my mind on why they can't translate that into first party game development. His whole stance on "single player experiences are too risky" seems like a cop-out excuse for his shortcomings in that area.

 

I want to say that they should be announcing new IPs this E3, but with nearly the entire E3 2014 conference cancelled (Phantom Dust reboot *not the remaster that's coming out*, Fable: Legends, and Scalebound) I can safely say that I can't trust them until the games are actually out.

 

If they definitely are planning on finally buckling down and giving deep thought to first party development instead of holding onto Forza, Halo, and Gears like a damn pacifier, then by all means I will take everything I said back. I just think it shouldn't have taken them this long to finally realize this.

[ratchetdude231]

13 minutes ago, Death_Ninja said:

Really used to like Phil...until I realized he says the same shit every single year (especially on Twitter) and nothing changes for the Xbox brand as far as games go. It's getting to the point where I think that MS is using him for PR while calling the shots over him. Really questioning the length of Phil's control over the brand.

 

They have some fantastic ideas over at Xbox with the features they put into the console and such, but it boggles my mind on why they can't translate that into first party game development. His whole stance on "single player experiences are too risky" seems like a cop-out excuse for his shortcomings in that area.

 

I want to say that they should be announcing new IPs this E3, but with nearly the entire E3 2014 conference cancelled (Phantom Dust reboot *not the remaster that's coming out*, Fable: Legends, and Scalebound) I can safely say that I can't trust them until the games are actually out.

 

If they definitely are planning on finally buckling down and giving deep thought to first party development instead of holding onto Forza, Halo, and Gears like a damn pacifier, then by all means I will take everything I said back. I just think it shouldn't have taken them this long to finally realize this.

I'm willing to bet money that is exactly what is happening. The Xbox One is ultimately a flop in the eyes of Microsoft even though the system has a pretty decently sized install base, so Microsoft pretty much took over and are calling the shots now. 

 

There has been this massive change in the Xbox division over the past 2 years where the focus is no longer on releasing first party titles and pushing the Xbox One, the focus is now on merging Xbox with Windows 10, and releasing hardware more frequently to make money on hardware. Microsoft has essentially turned Xbox into what Steam tried to do with the Steam machines where they released multiple hardware configurations on the market, while also making it so that every PC can be turned into a steam machine. The only major difference between Steam Machines and what Microsoft is doing is that unlike with Steam machines all Xbox One games will be playable on all Xbox One hardware configurations. 

 

What I'm really interested to see is if that approach will be successful or not. We live in a world where people buy a new phone and tablet every year so in theory that should translate well into the console space, but it honestly feels like no one gives a flying fuck about the PS4 Pro and as of right now it feels like no one cares about Scorpio. 

Edited April 29, 2017 by Ratchet

[Oobedoob S Benubi]

So that's why a full Alan Wake sequel never materialised and we had to make due with a small digital game...

 

Whatever. What I care for in gaming is provided by Sony and Nintendo. I like big single player games which both Sony and Nintendo deliver on. I like platformers, puzzlers, small weird games that have a unique style or twist and (futuristic) racing, both Sony and Nintendo deliver. I'm only into multiplayer if it's local and Nintendo delivers enough of that as well.

 

I vote with my wallet and until there's an Alan Wake sequel/prequel/spinoff as well as at least two more must-haves, there's zero chance I'm buying an X1.

[Nihiris-]

5 minutes ago, Ratchet said:

I'm willing to bet money that is exactly what is happening. The Xbox One is ultimately a flop in the eyes of Microsoft even though the system has a pretty decently sized install base, so Microsoft pretty much took over and are calling the shots now. 

 

There has been this massive change in the Xbox division over the past 2 years where the focus is no longer on releasing first party titles and pushing the Xbox One, the focus is now on merging Xbox with Windows 10, and releasing hardware more frequently to make money on hardware. Microsoft has essentially turned Xbox into what Steam tried to do with the Steam machines where they released multiple hardware configurations on the market, while also making it so that every PC can be turned into a steam machine. The only major difference between Steam Machines and what Microsoft is doing is that unlike with Steam machines all Xbox One games will be playable on all Xbox One hardware configurations. 

 

What I'm really interested to see is if that approach will be successful or not. We live in a world where people buy a new phone and tablet every year so in theory that should translate well into the console space, but it honestly feels like no one gives a flying fuck about the PS4 Pro and as of right now it feels like no one cares about Scorpio. 

 

I think a good reason is that people may not see a console as something they are willing to buy every year. Phones on the other hand are seen as necessities in today's society. As long as whatever box you have can still play the games coming out, most people will be happy. Take me for example, Horizon: Zero Dawn looks and runs amazing on my original PS4, at this point, why would I need a PS4 Pro? I'm sure it looks great in 4K, but I'm not buying another console just so it can look a little more pretty. I feel like that will be the attitude to the Pro and Scorpio as time goes on. Of course, I'm one person but I'd imagine it's not much different for a good amount of people.

[ratchetdude231]

13 minutes ago, Death_Ninja said:

 

I think a good reason is that people may not see a console as something they are willing to buy every year. Phones on the other hand are seen as necessities in today's society. As long as whatever box you have can still play the games coming out, most people will be happy. Take me for example, Horizon: Zero Dawn looks and runs amazing on my original PS4, at this point, why would I need a PS4 Pro? I'm sure it looks great in 4K, but I'm not buying another console just so it can look a little more pretty. I feel like that will be the attitude to the Pro and Scorpio as time goes on. Of course, I'm one person but I'd imagine it's not much different for a good amount of people.

I think that's the biggest issue with these console upgrades. For every PS4 Pro out there there are dozens of standard PS4 and PS4 Pro owners. As a result of that developers are developing their games for the lowest common denominator. I own a Pro and while the graphical enhancements are nice they are by no means mind blowing. I'm just as amazed at how Horizon looks on my Pro as I am looking at my little brother play Horizon on his standard PS4.

 

Better graphics don't seem enough of a reason to justify a new system. You actually need exclusives to push a new platform, and I think that will ultimately be Scorpio and the Pro's downfall. Nothing is harder than marketing a system to consumers that plays all the same games that their current PS4 or Xbox One plays.

 

 

This is a PS4 Pro ad. Here is the problem with this ad. They are trying to sell consumers on the Pro by showing them a game that they can play on their current PS4. When the PS4 Pro was announced I used to constantly say this is going to turn into a marketing nightmare for Sony, and chances are Scorpio will be a marketing nightmare for Microsoft as well.

 

Unless Microsoft is going to go back on it's promise of all Xbox One games being available on Xbox One and Scorpio I just can't see Scorpio doing well. They could have Halo 6 be their killer app for Scorpio and it wouldn't matter since Halo 6 will also be available on the original Xbox One. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 29, 2017 by Ratchet