On Sunday, Xbox boss Phil Spencer conducted an interview with IGN about a variety of topics, and during the conversation, he mentioned how he didn't want to do "slimy platform things" to force a certain way of playing games.
Here's the exact quote from the conversation, which focused on Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 specifically:
"It's a choice. We didn't say to anybody that you have to subscribe [to Game Pass] to play. If you want to buy Black Ops that's great - it's great for us, it's great for the developers. If you want to subscribe, it's also great."
"I want to give you the choice on how you play your games and who you play with, and not try to do slimy platform things to force you to do what I want you to do. Give the players choice on what they want to do and who they want to play with."
As you can imagine, there have been a few articles about this, and former PlayStation boss Shawn Layden decided to respond to one of them. In his reply on social media, he seemed amused by Phil's comments, while also hitting the "like" button on a variety of responses that were criticising the choice of words in this interview.
If you're wondering why someone might take offense to the "slimy platform things" comment, it's because it could be interpreted as referring to the timed exclusive content for Call of Duty and other games on PlayStation in recent years.
Notably, Spencer also admitted later in the conversation that Xbox originally "broke the community" by implementing a timed exclusivity deal for Call of Duty content back in the Xbox 360 days, which spanned from 2010-2015.
"[It was] started by Xbox that we kinda broke the [Call of Duty] community. And now getting back and saying like, everybody gets the same maps, the same game, at the same time - it was another thing I wanted to hit in the messaging."
Phil Spencer's specific line about "slimy platform things" didn't reference Call of Duty directly though, so we're not going to put words in his mouth. Ultimately, it's just pleasing to know that all Black Ops 6 content will be available to everyone at exactly the same time this October.
What do you make of this? Please keep it respectful down in the comments section below.
[source youtube.com]
Comments 33
I think Phil is very right here, but consoles have always worked that way.
For example, when I bought PS2 I didn't do it because I liked it, as a machine it was very weak, I didn't like the controller and NGC and Xbox OG were better consoles, but at that time I did want to play titles like Metal Gear Solid 3 or Devil May Cry had to do it there.
But this chaining between hardware or software has also given good things, for example Nintendo was able to make special games like Mario Galaxy thanks to it.
Are you deliberately leaving out the part where Spencer recognised that Microsoft started this during the XB360 generation and divided the COD gaming community?
Not enough traffic/clicks over the last couple of days, PX??🙄 You should really try and be better than PushSquare (it's really, really not that hard)....
Hunter is out of order there by suggesting Phil directly said Playstation were slimy, there's nothing to suggest he wasn't referring to Xbox's own past as much as anyone else
Im sure the comments here will be just as reasonable as on PushSquare.
But yep as someone has mentioned both companies have used various tactics over the years
@Sol4ris Don't be silly, of course we've had enough clicks over the last few days 😅
I'm not deliberately leaving anything out, I just didn't catch that bit. Can you share a timestamp in the IGN video for me?
@FraserG
I don't know how to do that 😊, and my break time is over. I think is when some guests join in.
I think it's really important to point out that LATER in the same interview Phil Spencer said that it was Microsoft not Sony who started the COD exclusivity thing and broke the community. It's just as likely he was referring to themselves, or the practise generally and NOT just Sony. Context is important.
See video here.
@themightyant Perfect, I'm going to add that in now. Thank you.
@Sol4ris I completely agree and posted the same above before I saw your comment. However I think a little leeway is due PX here. IGN live was an 11 and a half hour show and the part where Phil said this, likely to clarify, was NOT included in the separate short IGN Phil Spencer video as these words came later when he was on the panel with the 3 other developers. It is reasonable that most, including @FraserG won't have seen the full video. That's only for obsessives like us to point out
Personally I think it was a dig at every company that does it. Both Xbox in the past, and sometimes still the present, but Sony more now. He was still firing shots, just not directly as Sony.
Interesting that Layden immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was Sony Phil was referring to, not Nintendo for example.
Guilty much?
@themightyant @Sol4ris Yeah, please bare with us. We've had so much to consume over the past few days that certain bits of interviews can easily get missed - the intent isn't to mislead.
@FraserG No worries mate, fully understand. This time of year is exciting as a fan, but I can't imagine having to post the sheer number of articles you do in a few days. It's appreciated. I don't expect you to have consumed every piece of supplemental information too that wasn't part of the shorter interview. We'll correct you if we think you're missing something, like here.
MS could have done something like keep Doom, CoD etc on their Platform or only on Game Pass to force Gamers to buy their Hardware and/or their Subscription or 'miss' out.
They could have made Some content 'unavailable' to Playstation, even if only for a month or some other way of trying to force gamers to play where MS want you to play.
Yes they will 'need' some Exclusives to 'compete' and sell Hardware/Subscriptions, but their 'multi-platform' IP's will not treat the FANS of those IP's differently because of the Platform they are on.
MS and Sony may both be guilty of 'paying' a 3rd Party Publisher for some 'exclusivity' of Content in the past, and maybe still will in the future too. But CoD, like Minecraft, Doom etc is now 'first party'. MS see those fans on Playstation as fans of a Microsoft IP and so won't treat them 'differently' because they choose to play on Playstation.
We all 'believe' that if Sony bought CoD for example, they would have made it 'exclusive' or at the very least, made it timed with 'extra' content on PS.
Nothing stops Sony from releasing ALL their games on Xbox too for example. They don't because they believe exclusives will bring players into Playstation and want 100% of the money, not 70% and give MS 30% for letting them release on Xbox...
They have both done this past and present kept games and content.
So I won’t stick up for either business on that.
I’m just glad it has ended and everyone gets everything day one.
Microsoft ain’t innocent regarding these “slimy platform things” either. Look at the Xbox 360 COD exclusivity and the timed exclusivity of Rise of the Tomb Raider. Those are some examples. Sony ain’t innocent either. Final Fantasy 7 remakes, Silent Hill 2 remake, etc. Neither of them are innocent as they both have done these things.
@NeutronBomb kinda obvious that it was Sony Phil was referring to since they do it quite often and lot of times, the games get locked out from Xbox and Nintendo too an extent.
God forbid anyone recognize how slimy sony is. There's a massive difference between buying exclusive content, and doing it when you are outselling your competitor 2:1 or more. The economics are completely different.
I'm glad xbox has shaken up the console mindset so much. It was long overdue.
How is he not right about this?
If you want to play CoD you can play it on Playstation.
Remember. Bethesda and Activision purchases only happened after Sony made exclusivity deals with both publishers, either for exclusive CoD content or Playstation or entire games in the case of Bethesda.
Serves them right, if you ask me.
Good for Phil for pointing this out. Sony has been slimy, and it is not just COD. Paying to keep games off game pass, square enix, Ghostwire and Deathloop one year timed exclusives, Sony trying to make Starfield a timed exclusive, Hogwart's getting timed exclusive extra content. The list goes on and on. Not only does this affect Xbox gamers, but the PC community as well and even Nintendo in some instances. Why should Hogwart's, a huge AAA game, not have parity in content? Sony money hatting.
@cburg Games like High on life, Scorn and the Medium would like a word.
Xbox still does it but they do it with low quality games.
In fact he never mentioned Playstation. In my experience, when someone thinks you're talking about them even though you never said their name, they see themselves in your words...
@NeutronBomb The game in reference was call of duty sooooooo
A hit dog will holler.
It is good that going forward xbox is trying to keep its multiplats equal. Nothing wrong with exclusivity when it leverages first party IPs but altering multiplats with content and access that can appear everywhere is not good.
I'm a big fan of Layden's, but I can only imagine the kinds of things at his level that he saw from Xbox during the 360 era, and no doubt sees "slimy platform" flashbacks from Xbox quickly. Plus, got to wonder if he's just reacting against Phil's words but also a bit of self ridicule. He hasn't been a social media fan of Jim, either. And Jim dredged back some of the darkest Kutaragi era PS policies best left in the 90's that had disappeared in Hirai/Laden's era. I assume he's reacting to both here.
@FraserG you want them to expose flesh with you?
Or maybe you meant "bear" with you. As is bear the burden.
For some reason this linguistic mistake is common.
@FMT Good spot, apologies for the mistake!
That's why playing "mr nice guy" isn't working in this environment! Xbox and it's leadership will never learn, when the competition is constantly slapping your face you don't just turn the other cheek but fight back with the same terms. I believe Spencer should stop making this kind of interviews in the first place, especially at the IGN which is sponsored by Sony! wtf? they will never learn sadly!
MS isn't magnanimous, just look at the XOne release disaster. Granted not under Phil but it almost destroyed the brand completely. MS is still recovering from that disaster.
I'm glad MS is making more games available cross platform but I'm not understanding any illusions they wouldn't f**k us over in a heartbeat.
Strong competition keeps them both honest, so to speak. MS fortunately sees the writing the wall and is moving away from exclusives.
As an owner past and present of all PlayStation and Xbox consoles I'm certainly not a fanboy to either side, but Phil is wrong here and quite hypocritical. While Sony have employed certain tactics using money to get timed exclusivity here and there, you know what I find a more slimy tactic: paying $60 billion dollars to buy IP's because the teams you already have, have let their IP's stagnate and you can't really come up with any new fresh ideas that can sell your consoles. Maybe it's just me but buying success rather than making it yourself and then being critical of others for splashing the cash is just a tad childish and pathetic really.
Phil Spencer: we wont do slimy platform things
Also Phil Spencer: let's buy up the best developers so they make our platform better.
I hate hypocrisy.
I don't believe him. If Redfall hadn't been such a giga-disaster, I believe other games would have stayed on Xbox. Curious how it's the only game that is truly console exclusive. *(and Starfield woops.)
That said, I prefer this outcome. All these big publishers that Xbox bought staying 3rd party is the best of a bad situation. But they need to keep their "core" games exclusive (IE Gears, Halo, Forza, and whatever Initiative goes on to make after PD.)
Teams and games from studios that Xbox has actually built themselves or are the only reason said team is still around (Undead Labs) need to stay exclusive.
EDIT: Starfield is still an exclusive too, I wasn't including it in the "going 3rd party" list since that's not been officially confirmed. I genuinely just forgot about its existence lol. My bad.
It’s business, it’s slimey and both companies are as bad as each other. Whatever.
Uncle Phil is a real slime ball though, a wolf in sheeps clothing.
@Fenbops I don't believe that for a bit. He's been around a long time and he's been pretty genuine. And that has come back to bite him in the ass a few times. Everybody hangs on every little phrase he says. Everybody takes their own interpretation of his words. The dude has to clarity and re-clarify and say things as bluntly and plainly as possible, so that there's no room for interpretation. The ABK acquisition put a spotlight on that. So yeah, Phil has become pretty corporate in his PR fluff speak. But you can't blame him for that. You can blame the media and us, though.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...