Gaming

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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?

Sounds like skill issue.

phil spencer explains market discipline

Comrade?

Cry more rich boy, your tears are delicious.