top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 91 points 2 years ago (18 children)

You know who will give you money? Customers if you stop treating them like piñatas.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 2 years ago* (16 children)

    Valve is an excellent example of a company that is privately owned, so they don't have to satisfy shareholders with constant growth for growth's sake. And yet they're still growing and making a profit, because they make a good product.

    Phil and Xbox don't have that luxury because their masters sold out decades ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    Valve is also a good example of platform monopoly. People need to stop treating valve like they aren't also a big problem with the modern games industry. They are PC gaming's landlord taking a 30% cut of every sale. You have to be smoking crack if you think that doesn't hurt game developers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    They are a monopoly because they've had the best product on the market consistently for 15 years. There used to be huge resistance to them and their drm from gamers, but they have shown over many years that they are trustworthy, unlike others that have tried this.

    This is not an Apple or Google store situation where proper competition could not exist. They were always up against giants like Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft or more recently Epic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 66 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I think the real problem is businesses have to grow. If most big companies weren't publicly traded then just being profitable would be enough.

    Imagine making enough money to pay you and everyone else in your company a great wage one year, but it being bad because it wasn't more profit than last year.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 57 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    I actually can’t believe this is coming from a high level employee at a corporation.

    Like we all know this is true, but isn’t it big to hear one of them talking about the insanity of the system.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nobody forced this guy to be a soulless capitalist. He chose his career path. Oh woe is you, Phil. Must be so hard for you. /s

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (39 children)

    I can see why that would be a bummer. In my mind, the perfect video game-ceo position would be for a company that makes enough profit to pay its employees well and self sustains the business to keep making more games. Having to constantly report a higher user base and profitability growth year after year on a global scale would be a total drag.

  • source
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 32 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    I thought companies made money by selling a product to customers? Hmm, seems like there is some kind of contradiction here, perhaps Phil should look into that.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 28 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    You can grow without being hostile and negative. Start your own studios, make innovative games, compete with quality not acquisitions.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yes, but can you roll a platform of the distribution, breadth, depth and persistence over good and bad cycles of the scale of Xbox or PlayStation while being a private company? A few have tried.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 26 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Phil Spencer, you have the luxury to quit if you don’t like the things you’re being forced to do for money.

    Or, you could use your influence to try and push things in a different direction.

    But Phil Spencer, you will do neither. You’ll shut up and keep dribbling.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 20 points 2 years ago

    I dunno, maybe stop going public and just sell a decent game?

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    you get a lot of publicly traded companies that are in the industry that have to show their investors growth—because why else does somebody own a share of someone’s stock if it’s not going to grow?

    I thought the way it was supposed to work was, a company starts out investing in its growth and during this period shareholders get gains from the price of the stock going up, and then when it has maxed out just switch to shoveling the profits into dividends instead? If the industry has stopped growing, I don't see why there isn't a path to acknowledging that to investors, what am I missing?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • I get the feeling the part of capitalism Phil Spencer hates is the part where consumers can take their business elsewhere if they don't like the product.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm glad he can see the issue but then part way through the interview he loses it, and jumps to feeding the capitalist system

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    Sounds like skill issue.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago

    phil spencer explains market discipline

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago
    [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    Cry more rich boy, your tears are delicious.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›