“Paying marketing funds so another consoles base can’t play a piece of content doesn’t feel like growth,” says Phil Spencer on Twitter. However, we tend to disagree with Phil Spencer and we’ll tell you why.
Phil Spencer needs to stop being a hypocrite
We’re pretty sure that Square Enix and EA could have brought out ROTR and Titanfall without help. MS just bribed them. Sony did the same thing with Street Fighter V. It’s a shady and annoying tactic. It just seems that Microsoft was especially aggressive with it this generation. Even look at CoD and Sony’s bromance. MS are probably grabbing timed exclusive to combat the loss of their Activision deal.
Square Enix and EA have more than enough money to fund those particular games. Microsoft was just a hardware manufacturer that stepped in and offered some extra cash. And there’s really just no if’s or buts about it. PR is a very real thing. And those representatives are trained to dance around and defend their deals. They would never outright say “we were paid off”.
We want to believe that MS really helped in making those games. But the thing that made us doubt is that the developer (for example, Rise of the tomb raider) always answer so vaguely when asked about their exclusivity. Every time when people ask about it, Crystal Dynamics just answered that “Our friends at MS showed us their love dramatically”. That’s what kind of bugs us.
They didn’t say that “MS helped us making the game, without them the game wouldn’t be possible”. Funding or publishing a game is a big thing and shouldn’t be hidden. MS should just be labeled directly as the co-founder. There is just no reason not to mention it. The only explanation from Phil Spencer is that “We want a game like Uncharted on our system”. And the only explanation from the developers is “Our friend at MS showed their love dramatically”.
Source: Phil Spencer Twitter