GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Xbox Exec Clarifies Comments About DLC Exclusivity and More

"Paying marketing funds so another console's base can't play a piece of content doesn't feel like growth."

336 Comments

Xbox executive Phil Spencer has spoken out to clarify some comments he made earlier about how the video game industry can grow in the future.

In 2015, Spencer said he wanted that year's E3 show to focus more on Microsoft's own franchises and expanding them. Asked on Twitter recently if this is still Microsoft's directive, Spencer said it is. He cited things like EA Access, Fallout mods, the Game Preview program, and cross-play between Xbox One and PC that are things that "move gaming forward," and in some cases are only available on Xbox.

"Our [first-party] IP should do the same," Spencer said, referencing efforts that push gaming forward.

He went on to say the continued support for Halo 5, particularly its Forge mode, is an example of Microsoft continuing to invest in and grow its own franchises.

As for what Spencer doesn't want to do, he said, "Paying marketing funds so another console's base can't play a piece of content doesn't feel like growth."

This might sound like a dig at Sony's timed-exclusivity deal with Activision for Call of Duty and Destiny DLC, but Spencer doesn't see it that way. "People getting worked up on this," he said when someone suggested he was being hypocritical. "Never said Xbox has never done this, not calling out others, just not practice I like, that's it."

Microsoft has its own co-marketing deals, too, one of which is with Ubisoft for The Division DLC.

What do you make of Spence's comments? Let us know in the comments below!

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 336 comments about this story
336 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for deactivated-5893d17ed65b4
deactivated-5893d17ed65b4

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

"Paying marketing funds so another console's base can't play a piece of content doesn't feel like growth."

**Ahem**

Rise of the Tomb Raider and Dead Rising 4 contradict this sentiment.

10 • 
Avatar image for xenomorphalien
XenomorphAlien

5118

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@Lacerz: How many people here read the headline and jump right into the comments?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for pnova
PNOVA

153

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By PNOVA

@xenomorphalien: Phil Spencer was the one pumping rise of tombraider wtf

Upvote • 
Avatar image for xenomorphalien
XenomorphAlien

5118

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@pnova: They funded it, not buying it out when it was done.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for khosatralkhel
Khosatralkhel

90

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 5

@Lacerz: They published those games as in paid for their development, Spencer directly says this. The very fact that they are allowing the devs to release on other platforms eventually says it all. Personally I wouldn't let them but Spencer has this fairness thing going on which I respect but think is a bit of a mistake.

2 • 
Avatar image for bdrtfm
BDRTFM

6639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Lacerz: Read the headline and the body. Clearly they are talking about DLC, not full games that were published by the console manufacturer.

11 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5893d17ed65b4
deactivated-5893d17ed65b4

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@bdrtfm:

Timed exclusive games are the same as timed DLC. SE didn't need Microsoft to publish RoTR. It was a way to make a game a timed exclusive. It's nonsense to say otherwise.

5 • 
Avatar image for bdrtfm
BDRTFM

6639

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Lacerz:You've no idea what the reasoning behind the deal was. Maybe SE was short on cash. Maybe they needed any other type of help. The point is. I have no problem with a company stepping in and Publishing a game for a dev as well as foot the bill for pretty much everything else. I mean, who'd say no to that? "We can make a game risk free to our company just by agreeing to release it first on one console? F yeah, where do we sign.?" And PS4 owners got bonus content when TR did come to PS. What will Xbox owners get when Street Fighter comes to Xbox? Oh, that's right, it's not.

3 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5893d17ed65b4
deactivated-5893d17ed65b4

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@bdrtfm:

Did Sony make the statement, or did Microsoft?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for clarens56
clarens56

179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Lacerz: They published Tomb raider

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5893d17ed65b4
deactivated-5893d17ed65b4

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@clarens56:

They didn't publish it for the PS4. A publishing deal is a timed exclusivity deal. Like SE needs Microsoft as a publisher. It was Microsoft "paying marketing funds so another console's base can't play a piece of content..."

4 • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Lacerz:

When you publish a piece of content you aren't just paying for marketing funds. Like it or not, Microsoft helped with development costs as well. This means that the game might not have been made (or may not have been the same) without Microsoft.

2 • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Thanatos2k

@doctor_mg: "When you publish a piece of content you aren't just paying for marketing funds. Like it or not, Microsoft helped with development costs as well."

Not always true. Microsoft may have given them money for the deal, but whether that money was needed to justify lost sales on the other console are another thing entirely.

And many games are funded by the developer and distributed by a publisher with no development costs paid.

2 • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Thanatos2k:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-will-be-published-by-micro/1100-6424104/

"support across development, marketing and retail than ever before"

Not all publishers pay for developmental costs, but most do. Also, Microsoft did help with developmental costs.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@doctor_mg: Please don't use marketing gibberish as confirmation of anything.

2 • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Thanatos2k:

Well, where is your support that they didn't?
It seems like I'm the only one with evidence here.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Thanatos2k

@doctor_mg: Did I argue they didn't? I argued they might have. And marketing materials aren't going to prove anything.

2 • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Thanatos2k:

The implication that they don't is there, yes.

First, you are cherry picking. Second, I don't need to prove anything. Most publishers provide developmental funding, as well as other things. The burden of proof lays on you, not me.

Your argument "Microsoft may have given them money for the deal, but whether that money was needed to justify lost sales on the other console are another thing entirely."

I provided you with a source which explicitly stated they helped with more than just marketing. If you have evidence that shows the converse then, please, provide it. Otherwise you are committing an argument from ignorance.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@7tizz:

That has always been my problem...I like arguing so much that I don't know when I'm just talking to a brick wall lol

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5893d17ed65b4
deactivated-5893d17ed65b4

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@doctor_mg:

Untrue. If Microsoft had developed any part of Tomb Raider, it would not be on the Playstation. Period. Microsoft would also be listed as a developer. They aren't. That's Intellectual Property and pretty important. Microsoft invested in publishing rights as a timed exclusivity deal. That's it.

You're trying to tell us that Square Enix and Crystal Dynamics couldn't fund a game, one that has a huge following and sold more copies with the reboot on the PS4. That is stupid. Obviously it was a Microsoft attempt to buy exclusivity.

Best thing is that it didn't work. PS4 still dominates the XBO.

5 • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Lacerz:

Did you read my comment, or did you just see the word "development" and jump on your keyboard? I never said Microsoft developed the game, I said Microsoft helped fund development costs.

Also,

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/square-enix-reports-61-million-loss-as-sleeping-dogs-and-hitman-absolution-sales-sag/

Around the time that Rise of the Tomb Raider was starting development Square Enix was facing substantial losses. Could they have funded the game? Sure. Would it have been a bigger risk? Most definitely. Also, the development team may not have been able to pull off as high of production values had Microsoft not funded development. Hence my statement: "the game might not have been made (or may not have been the same) without Microsoft"


2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5893d17ed65b4
deactivated-5893d17ed65b4

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@doctor_mg:

To the point, it was Microsoft buying one year's worth of exclusivity. Deny it all you want.

Great thing about Sony is that they have so many First Party studios, this isn't an issue.

5 • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Lacerz:

Yep, there was an exclusivity deal, but without Microsoft the game may not have been made at all.

Also, for the record, the sales for Rise of the Tomb Raider on PS4 are almost exactly the same as the Xbox One in the same time frame. By the end of the first month the PS4 version sold a little over 500,000 copies and Xbox One version sold a little over 500,000 copies as well after its first month on store shelves.

2 • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@lim30041982:

I'm sure that they didn't. My point is that Lacerz is under the impression that the exclusivity was a bad decision for Square Enix. Personally, it doesn't seem like many PS4 owners were terribly interested in the title. If they were, well the numbers would probably be different.

2 • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Doctor_MG

@lim30041982:

Its stupid to pay 60$ for a game which includes all of its DLC and extra content? A game which is also PS4 Pro supported? A game which also supports PSVR? That doesn't sound very stupid to me.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5893d17ed65b4
deactivated-5893d17ed65b4

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@doctor_mg:

So you're argument is that Rise of the Tomb Raider would not exist without Microsoft. Wow.

2 • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Lacerz:

My argument is that Microsoft helped fund development, and without those extra funds Rise of the Tomb Raider either may not have been or could be very different from what we see today.

3 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5893d17ed65b4
deactivated-5893d17ed65b4

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@doctor_mg:

Many PS4 owners boycotted the game.

2 • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Lacerz:

How petty of them.
Besides, PS4 has over twice the install base as the Xbox One. In fact, it may have had almost triple the install base from when Rise of the Tomb Raider launched on Xbox One to when it launched on PS4.

Xbox One sales November 2015: approximately 17 million
PS4 sales October 2016: approximately 46 million

So, the PS4 with almost triple the install base, couldn't manage to sell a game better than the competing platform with 1/3rd the install base...yet you claim that they would have done better by going to the PS4, and part of your excuse as to why it didn't sell is because PS4 owners "boycotted the game"?

Obviously Tomb Raider isn't really that important to them. If I was Square Enix I certainly wouldn't pander to them.

3 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5893d17ed65b4
deactivated-5893d17ed65b4

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@doctor_mg:

It's not petty. They had plenty of better alternatives.

2 • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Lacerz:

Further enhancing the above point. Why should Square Enix cater Tomb Raider to a bunch of individuals who aren't going to support them and their product?

Also, boycotting a game isn't just "eh there are better things to play". Boycotting something is when you refuse to have any interaction with a product or service to punish or make a point. If Sony fans are boycotting Rise of the Tomb Raider because it was on another console first...then...yes, that is pretty petty in my opinion.

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5893d17ed65b4
deactivated-5893d17ed65b4

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@doctor_mg:

Better games to play means that Tomb Raider had worn its welcome. Uncharted 4 was out, and was a much better game. Who cares about Tomb Raider by that point? SE learned a lesson. Don't support an inferior product.

2 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-58a136de1c38f
deactivated-58a136de1c38f

86

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Lacerz: So you complained that TR got "exclusivity" rights on an inferior product (try saying that to the scorpio by the way) and it should be on the "superior" product. And now you're saying it doesn't matter - because you had better alternatives.

Do the words: backpedaling hypocrite mean anything?.

3 • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Lacerz:

"worn its welcome"
Weren't you just saying that Playstation supports Tomb Raider more?
Quote: "one that has a huge following and sold more copies with the reboot on the PS4. That is stupid."

So...now they don't really care for Tomb Raider? But before they did!
You backpedal too often.

Yes, Uncharted 4 was out. It also came out almost 6 months before Rise of the Tomb Raider did on the PS4. Also, Rise of the Tomb Raider gave PS4 owners more content, and even catered to the PS4 Pro fanbase. Your excuse that they didn't care enough to purchase it shows that they don't really care for Tomb Raider. Why should Square Enix try supporting a "fanbase" when it is evident that they will drop the product (or flat out not purchase it) when the next big thing comes along.

3 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-58a136de1c38f
deactivated-58a136de1c38f

86

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@doctor_mg: That's pretty much the PS4 fanboys for you. Disregard just about every other product(s) and spout off the usual list that is copied and pasted (ad nasueum) on here as exclusives.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for dynamitecop
dynamitecop

6395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Are you people this mentally incompetent?

Phil is clearly talking from a personal basis here, what Xbox ends up doing and the final decisions they make does not entirely rest upon his shoulders. He can personally dislike practices the very brand he works for is engaged in, but also has to see them through as the head of the department, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Everyone does things they don't like or find stupid at their jobs, but have to do because it's a part of their job. Just because you do something for work doesn't mean you personally agree with it.

He is the head of Xbox, he doesn't own it, he's not in complete control of everything he just has a larger say than most people but he still has to appease bosses and financial reports.

Get a grip people.

19 • 
Avatar image for DARREN636
DARREN636

958

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

@dynamitecop:

excellent comment.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-5a3920d6b9003
deactivated-5a3920d6b9003

1059

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@dynamitecop: Microsoft pays him billions every year, and you think his opinion is 100% unbiased?

Well, maybe it is, but than his words can only mean that he is trying to attend for another job in another company.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for davillain
DaVillain

56317

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By DaVillain  Moderator

@dynamitecop: Phil isn't no saint, but MS sure love spinning things around here when it doesn't suit there agenda.

8 • 
Avatar image for xcrimsonxsynx
XCrimsonxSynX

928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@davillain-: What agenda? You make it sound like some kind of conspiracy. This is personal feelings about timed exclusives. If it was up to him, he would move away from those practices. Damn, kids these days flip flop on a daily basis.

3 • 
Avatar image for davillain
DaVillain

56317

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

DaVillain  Moderator

@xcrimsonxsynx: Timely DLC Exclusive was MS doing last-gen and this is getting worse by the days.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for deactivated-58a136de1c38f
deactivated-58a136de1c38f

86

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@davillain-: And the Sony fanbase are boycotting this practise are they?. By the looks of it, they aren't. If anything they are supporting it. Which is even worse.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for davillain
DaVillain

56317

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

DaVillain  Moderator

@helixt: I don't know, I don't pay attention to Sony fanboys these days, I'm too busy playing my games on PS4 & PC for the most parts.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for dynamitecop
dynamitecop

6395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@davillain-: That doesn't mean he's a saint, but his personal views don't always have to line up with or reflect the decisions made at Microsoft, he has a leading role but he's not the end all be all of final decisions made for the company.

4 • 
Avatar image for moonco
Moonco

3848

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Moonco  Moderator

@dynamitecop: Explains why MS senior management is a mess. No one is on the same page so they are always contradicting each other without a clear vision for the future

5 • 
Avatar image for bandcelks00024
bandcelks00024

179

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Moonco: ok. I will try. They are a huge corporate company w several divisions. There is a ceo of ms. Ceo of xbox. Ceo of windows. And many many people who work under them. But they all have someone working over them. Called shareholders. A share holder is someone who owns stock in your company. Theyve invested their cash into your company wanting to see a positive return on that cash. If you are doing a pi$$ poor job making your company money, they have a majority shareholders meeting. This is where the people w the most shares of a company get to get together and vote for a new better ceo. What happened to mattrick after the fateful interview.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for doctor_mg
Doctor_MG

2366

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Doctor_MG

@davillain-:

MS isn't spinning anything. Phil is clarifying something he said a month or a couple months ago. Phil =/= Microsoft.

Also, double negative in your first sentence. He is not no saint? So he isn't a no saint...does that make him a saint? I don't get it.

11 •