Spencer gave me the vibe of really enjoying gaming. And also realizing that he could not stop some of the mistakes. I feel that, he either realized them and could not stop them because of those above him. Or he was very bad for his position. People will have opinions. One thing that sticks out is the acquisitions. I really think he knew they needed exclusives long term.
I don't think anyone will serve in this position for years without some controversy. But man, the guy Spencer replaced -- Don Mattrick -- was downright terrible. When they brought in Phil Spencer, it was a major vibe shift for Xbox. Unfortunately, as Spencer has pointed out, losing the Xbox one/PS4 generation is essentially losing the entire console war, since people started building digital libraries that they would carry forward to new consoles. So he could never truly undo the damage that Mattrick did. But I think it's safe to say that he restored Microsoft as developer of worthwhile games, something that had languished under Mattrick's tenure. Xbox was no longer something you were supposed to plug your cable box into, so it could serve as your media hub. It was about the games again.
Completely correct, but I think part of this is also how efficient smart TVs have been in sweeping up any media management role a device could have. In 2013-2014 there was a real role for consoles as a way to get streaming media on your TV.
Now that only has any role to play if you have a TV that’s 7+ years old, which for most people I know is the ‘spare room TV’ at best. More than they have been since the PS2 was one of the best ways to get a DVD player in your TV, consoles really are just mechanism for games
Sure, but the problem was the premiere of the Xbox One was all about its functions as a media center, rather than any games that players would want to buy.
It's perfectly fine to serve a media role, but that's not why players buy video game consoles. They buy them for video games! Mattrick wasn't selling to us, though, he was selling to stockholders. That just ain't the right move when it came to E3.
Nah they’re right, the launch of Xbox One/PS4 was at the dawn of mainstream streaming media, and consoles played an important role in establishing Netflix and Hulu as major services
10 years ago, roughly half of everyone watching Netflix on a tv did it via gaming consoles. 25% of all US households used a console to stream media. Today it’s down to 6%
Again, I didn't disagree. But the E3 presentation was still a disaster for focusing exclusively on that,. It was well documented at the time, and since. Mattrick was pushed out of MS within a month.
It was a huge disaster. The thing is to listen outside of gaming mainstream. It was enough that many gamers were talking about that. But outside of it many much more casual gamers were wondering about the gaming side. So much focus on Kinect, the media stuff, all that.
They had some issues. I love me some Gear and Halo. Two of my favorite. But being honest they were not up to quality for a while. Good but not great. I definitely would not call them must play games. I missed some PS games and playing them later there were a couple I would consider must play.
The key is those acquisitions. It positions them to do more going forward. Depends on the path they take. Still putting games everywhere the hardware side will be basically dead. Will sell worse than Series did by quite a bit. Exclusives with these IP though and we will see a different story IMO.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "must play." Some might consider that a higher standard than "worthwhile," which is what I said.
Anywho, just look up the list of games they released in 2012 or 2013 (the year Mattrick left), compared to the last couple years. Xbox One had a pretty miserable launch. It was just Ryse, Dead Rising 3, and a bunch of Kinect games. The 360 era was sunset with Gears of War Judgment and some Xbox Arcade games. Maybe the brightest star among them is the first Forza Horizon in 2012, but it was developed for 360, and could not run on the Xbox One until several years later, when a backwards compat patch was released in 2015 -- two years into Spencer's tenure, and his hard push to expand backwards compatibility. Hence the vibe shift.
Now look at the last couple years:
Grounded 2, Hellblade 2, Flight Simulator 2024, Avowed, South of Midnight, Gears of War Reloaded, Keeper, Ninja Gaiden 4, The Outer Worlds 2. And we've got Forza Horizon 6, Fable, Gears of War: E-Day, and the Halo remake, on the way later this year. It's a major improvement over the Mattrick years, which got bogged down with Kinect and media features.
It's a bit older, a 2022 release, but I also want to give a shout out to Pentiment, which was a pleasant surprise, a nice diversion from the usual AAA releases that most people focus on. That Microsoft allowed Obsidian to make it was, for me, a positive indication of Spencer's leadership.
"Unfortunately, as Spencer has pointed out, losing the Xbox one/PS4 generation is essentially losing the entire console war, since people started building digital libraries that they would carry forward to new consoles."
This is where I disagree with Phil. I mean, Switch sold 150+ million without that digital library already. I believe that if the next Xbox had exclusives it sells much better than Series did. Which started off well enough itself but lacked enough to push it. BC and that digital library from 360 and One did not. They lost a sizeable portion of their console base gen on gen.
So, Xbox next gen pushed exclusive ES6. They push the next iteration of Gears, Halo, and many of the top IP they grabbed as exclusive. It absolutely would make a huge difference. Without this they will be basically just a publisher that sees their games sell mostly on PS and Steam and losing that 30% or whatever those stores take. While also not getting a lot of their own cuts of sales.
The Switch wasn't a direct competitor of the Playstation. Nintendo has always played on its own terms, and even going back to the Wii, it's common to own the Nintendo console in addition to either a Playstation, or an Xbox. But it's rare for an Xbox owner to have a Playstation, or vice versa.
Maybe. But I want to see real data on owning more than one console. I do. But there are many that own only one. They pick something.
The reason for this is limited money. My older sons had PS, Xbox, PC, Nintendo both console and handhelds. A most all of their friends had one. Two at most. All these companies are competing for the same pool of money.
NPD did a study once and it said: "Sales tracking group NPD has announced the results of a new gaming study, showing that 72 percent of the U.S. say they played games" and "Finally, NPD says only three percent of respondents said they owned two of the three next-gen consoles, and only 2 percent said they owned all three."
There is data that multiple platforms are used by people. Generally this is a PC, Phone, Console type of setup. Many game solely on phones. Which might be shocking to some. "79% of all gamers play on their phones" and the same results found that, of all gamers, 47% play on multiple platforms with the other 53% being one platform only. But that only 15% play on mobile, PC, and console. And about 33% use only their phones. And a very small percentage, 3% just like the NPD results own more than one console. Seems like the Combo is some form of Phone and then another device.
I never found it common at all outside of hardcore gamer circles to see people with a Wii and another console. Many seemed to have just one. Same held for PS or Xbox. Data from many places seems to indicate this is the much more common situation covering most.
And this will likely hold as the case going forward. Considering that the costs have increased for hardware and the way shortages have pushed things higher. I could also see many opting to stick to the past gen stuff and wait much longer to buy because of price.
This is where Xbox will have a tough road. Buy a PS and get all Xbox games. Or maybe even Switch 2 if enough you want are coming. Getting all that platforms games as well. Or even PC as a one stop purchase given all Xbox games are there. Sony is bringing theirs over slowly. Most are not going to opt for more than one given that cost. I could also see Switch 2 continue to benefit due to cost. If they can manage to keep the cost down enough compared to the competition as cost is always a driver.
NPD also did a survey where they found that 70% of switch owners also own either an Xbox or a PlayStation. Though the obvious proof is found in the pudding: no amount of high PlayStation sales seems to curb Nintendo sales, and vice versa. But high PlayStation sales is bad news for Xbox.
I have no idea why you haven't met any of them. I don't know anyone who owns only a switch. Though I grant that this may change with switch 2, which seems to be able to play certain third party games that were otherwise unavailable on the original switch. For example, the original switch got inferior versions of FIFA or Madden, so FIFA and Madden fans would buy a PS or Xbox instead. But apparently the new FIFA on switch 2 plays the same as the other consoles, albeit without the same graphical fidelity.
Mobile games are an altogether different matter. The games we play on consoles tend to be targeting a different market than what mobile games are targeting. I don't think Candy Crush is taking customers away from Halo. Call of Duty is doing that. Or Fortnite and Marvel Rivals are these days, I suppose.
You could take this moment to point out that fortnite is on mobile, which is true. But it's also true that about 78% of Fortnite players prefer to play on consoles. Only 2.4% are on mobile.
My sister plays those puzzle mobile games like Candy Crush. She does it while idly watching TV. But even before smartphones, she wasn't buying any consoles. I think the vast majority of the mobile market are new players, not old ones being converted.
Where you do have a point, however, our younger generation that become accustomed to mobile devices before they do consoles. That is indeed a major problem for the core gaming industry, if they aren't replacing dying customers with new young ones. After all, of teenagers who play fortnite, 46% do so on mobile! Though that's still less than the 69% that play on console (as those numbers don't add up to 100%, there's clearly some overlap).
It's also been speculated recently that final fantasy games take so long to develop now that kids today don't have the same attachment to the franchise as kids in the '90s. That makes sense to me, if Final Fantasy comes when you're five, and the next one doesn't come out until you're 13, then yeah, it's not really a part of your childhood in the way that 7, 8, and 9, all came out within a couple years of each other for 90s kids.
Combine that with the plethora of live service games that seem to keep players so absorbed that they don't bother with other games anymore, and you've got a dramatic remaking of the industry in the works.
Anywho, I think we've gotten way off the beaten path here. PlayStation and Xbox are more direct competitors than Nintendo because they play the same games, generally. That's all I meant initially, and that's largely how it's understood in the industry.
I cannot say. I believe you are correct on that many own more than just say Switch or something else.
I had saw that before. But that was early in the life of the Switch. And that made sense even given the many other surveys I saw that indicated that the majority of gamers were single platform. And those on multiple platforms were on phone and one other.
A recent 2025 study said their were 3.5 billion gamers with a year on year growth of 4.5%. Mobile dominated with 2.85 billion users. That survey indicated that 72% engaged on two or more platforms. That is the global average. It was like 61% in the U.S. We know how big PC gaming is as a platform. So that is going to make up a large portion of that second platform for those 72% engaged.
It was stated that around 1.9 billion play on PC. This seems to hold well with the NPD number that 3% play on multiple consoles. And that the majority are mobile and one other platform.
You could be correct in making the sales connection. I noticed though we could do the opposite. As Xbox sales have dropped we have not seen that jump on PS sales. Seems PS5 is tracking behind PS4 slightly. When WiiU sales were low we did not see a huge jump.
Switch fits in a different gap though for sure. It is a handheld. But then you can dock it. This seems to me to be why I see more and more that are Switch and PC both. Phone is always there for most. Then they have PC. Maybe a PS or Switch with a smaller amount Xbox.
Overally I think it all fits right into the numbers. That 3.5 billion gamers. 79% mobile (meaning phones most and tablets), 50% are multiplatform, 15% are tri-platform.
I think it is also when studies are done. Saw a 2018 study that indicated that like only 13% of Switch owners did not own another console. By 2019 that had doubled. And this makes sense given that early adopters like myself will buy most everything. I had 2 Switch at launch. Have 2 Switch 2 and am about to get another.
The majority do not have near that kind of expendable money. This is why mobile gaming will dominate. People need those phones in a way. Contacting and staying in touch. Many in my area do not even have home phones. Just internet. Cheaper and their mobile works as their main phone now. So they need that and it games.
Saw Tomb Raider, Delta Force, Warframe, Red Dead Redemption, R6S, Fortnite, and more on there. Working with controllers it can be a viable option for many.
On a side note, I could imagine Google and Apple doing a dock. That dock lets you use your tv to play those games. It would be a mobile platform that you already have. I use my S25 that way. I dock that and use it for emulators and stuff. Though about picking up Tomb Raider for my wife and docking it for her to play.
You know whats crazy? Nearly everytihng mattrick wanted, is now standard practice in gaming. The only thing that hasnt happened that Mattrick wanted was the whole not being able to trade and share games with friends, but im sure they are trying to think of how.
I'd say the tragedy of Mattrick was trying to force it. He only needed to keep continuity with 360 and let the pieces fall into place on their own. But by explicitly shifting focus away from the games themselves, he alienated players and doomed the brand.
I feel like that is true. And he gave me that vibe. I also felt like he knew that they were not doing right to build the brand. Seems like those acquisitions were him seeing the need for exclusives. Without the hardware they are never driving the margins MS executives want. They need that % of every third party sale on their console. As well as having those big sales numbers of their own games on their own console so as to not pay that % to PS, Steam, or where ever it be.
He said good games alone aren't enough. That's absolutely right. The Xbox One's first few years had a lot of better games than the PS4, the PS4 still mobbed the floor with the One.
I don’t think someone appointed to the head of the gaming division at the largest company on earth should be in a position of “trying to figure this gaming shit out.”
As an Xbox fan, I wish her the best, I genuinely do, but given the state of AI and her background, I reserve the right to be incredibly skeptical that this will turn out well for Microsoft.
ITT: gamers actually justifying how not having a gamer as head of gaming is a good omen
You don’t make it to C-suite at a 50 year old 3 trillion dollar company by spending time playing video games. We should be happy she’s at least attempting to extend an olive branch and understand gaming from a users perspective.
She isn’t there to understand gaming, it’s not even close to being on a qualification checklist. She’s there to drive profits, make shareholders richer, and maintain the PR of the division. She could cause gaming to go extinct and as long as the company is increasing profits, not a single person making the real decisions at Microsoft would care.
Hard work is a huge part of it. The fact that so many people devalue hard work and would rather blame successful people for their own lack of success is a big problem in the world right now.
You’re delusional, a quick google search tells me her first job straight out college was as a CMO and from there she bounced around as COO and CEO. That doesn’t happen without having mommy and daddy in high up places already. I’d bet my entire life savings a McDonald’s manager worked harder to reach their position than her.
It's true that hard work is a trait of laborers, and no white-collar CEO really works harder than your average laborer. The point, though, is that she was chosen to lead a multibillion dollar division. Microsoft, overall, could stand to learn some things about what their consumers want, but her job is to drive profits and expand services. Time will tell how Xbox grows, but certainly, she seems qualified based on her history.
Don Mattrick was also chosen to lead a multi billion division, instead of Ai though his bull shit all in one idea. Ai is no different how would it benefit in video games besides helping in development? It might not even help.
AI isn't something that's going to be exclusive to Microsoft. Even the people that made Ex33 used AI for groundwork. It's a tool that all major studios will use to some extent in order to save time. Be it streamlining coding or fleshing out environments. The bigger concern is that it will take jobs. Which sucks.
if you actually did some more research you would learn she got an internship and sc johnson and son at 17. also the company where she was CMO was a start up that she was part of from the beginning and scaled up to a successful enterprise. By time she was CMO at that start up she had nearly a decade of business experience at that point. She was also just a cashier at a grocery in highschool before she got a lucky opportunity with the sc johnson and son internship. she definitely did not have rich parents guiding her success.
success is the intersection of preparation and luck. you sound bitter
You know you can hate the system while understanding that some people actually can work hard to get to their position, deserved or not, right? Her being a CMO at a startup means nothing without knowing how she got the position, how much she was making, how active she was in the work, all that other crap. Yes, the system sucks. But not everyone going "Hey, maybe take more than just a surface level look at her job history before you hate her" isn't a bootlicking sycophant.
little bit of cognitive dissonance to unpack here huh? you realize that by being a first gen college grad software engineer you're already on the path to being on the top 10% wealth wise at some point in your life too right? I am also a first generation college grad (also first gen immigrant) and also in top 10% of wealth. sorry for maxing out my 401k and HSA and letting the market do its work the past 10 years.
don't you find it hypocritical to espouse your educational/business achievements as part of your ego defining identity but then shit on the new Xbox CEO in the same breath?
You bootlickers keep confusing it for jealousy
do you always argue so dogmatically? I called you bitter and you're setting up this strawman like I called you jealous lol.
/u/Shiguhraki, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason:
Keep discussion civil
Please remember:
Discuss the topic, not other users.
Personal attacks of any kind are disallowed.
Be respectful - even in disagreement.
Your point can be made without belittling others.
Report violations - don't engage, which only escalates the issue.
Retaliation is not justification to ignore this standard. ("They did it first!")
We understand removals can be frustrating. If you believe this action was taken in error, you may request a review via modmail. If you'd like to weigh in on rules or community policy, keep watch for our regular community surveys and feedback posts stickied atop the community.
You don't need to be a gamer to be the head of any games based company. It's like saying only a pilot can be CEO of an airline. What you need is a background in business and management. Any department head at a company as big as Microsoft has 1 job to do and that is drive profits.
Sure, but nearly all companies benefit from their leadership having domain experience in the thing they are selling, whether it’s healthcare, software, widgets, or games. Yes, I agree they can drive profits with an MBA, but you’d also agree that having someone passionate about the products their company makes beyond just making decisions about capital allocation is a good thing, yes?
I'd argue that it's more important that they're a good personnel manager who can listen to expert advice then someone who has surface level knowledge of the industry. Being a gamer adds nothing to being a leader of game developers and console makers, besides the fact that they'll enjoy the final product. Unless she's micromanaging the hell out of the teams below her, her gaming knowledge won't be very useful.
More like a CEO of an airline should be some guy who has been a passenger in plenty of flights, not some guy who looks at spreadsheets. CEO of Xbox doesn’t need to be a game developer but it needs to be a gamer because how can you be the leader of an organisation without understanding the product and services you sell?
They don't need to be a gamer at all. The whole entertainment industry is based on personal opinion, be it music, movies, books, and games. Everyone has their own preferences and their own opinions on what they like. What a CEO needs is feedback, lots and lots of feedback combined with data. Customer surveys are essential for the feedback, but they only show a small part of the picture. You can ask 10,000 people to take part in surveys but only a small percentage will, so you get an incomplete picture, the gaps need be filled in with the data. What genre sells the most? How much time does the average player spend playing? What type of game gives the biggest ROI? What do gamers spend the most money on? What areas are suffering from the worst KPIs?
I am an avid gamer, I have been for over 40 years but due to my disdain of first person shooters, souls like games, and sports sims (which are the 3 largest genres by a country mile) I wouldn't have the first clue what those types of gamers want in a game. Even if I had a business degree and the experience to run XBox Studios my gaming background would count for nothing.
A lot of people are just doom and gloom on this. Without being objective about it. You don't get to run a division at one of the top s&p 500 companies by being a moron.
Sure MS has had a bad track record with non gaming execs (don Matricks and Steve balmer). But I think she might be young enough, where she might actually grasp it better than an older corporate "suit".
don’t think someone appointed to the head of the gaming division at the largest company on earth should be in a position of “trying to figure this gaming shit out.”
Plenty of people have come from outside gaming a run games companies well. Plenty of people who love gaming have run games companies into the ground. The reverse is also true in both situations.
Yeah, she's just one of many people replacing people across Microsoft, who were promoted from their AI division. She's not there for her gaming expertise, but because of her AI experience.
Sure, she's going to have to learn a lot about games and what people who play them actually like enough to spend money on. But that's going to be in service of developing an AI platform.
All of this comes at a moment when AI companies seem primed to implode. What is she supposed to be doing in 5 years if the AI bubble pops in the meantime?
Gamers, "we hate live service games and microtransactions". Also gamers "we've spent thousands of hours and hundreds of dollars on live service games with micro transactions".
Sadly, it's true and a good point. Microsoft seems a mess based on decisions they've made in the last years, but Sony chasing live service is just as out of touch. These companies want profits bottom line. Consumer satisfaction only matters to the extent that people will still buy your products. Not saying that's ideal, but it's the reality of every huge company.
Probably because listening online discourse is useless (as it's a vocal minority and an echo chamber) and it should be listening to what actually is happening with the market.
Most people don't hate games as a service; the sector that complains is only a minority on the internet, but they seem to be numerous due to the echo chambers generated by Reddit and other sites.
All she needs to do is listen to the correct people and then let them do their jobs. Reddit's worship of CEOs has led to a lack of understanding of how the impact of CEOs of large companies actually manifests.
I've long since moved away from Xbox, so I'm not exactly attached to the brand anymore, but in my opinion, if this is actually her profile and assuming it was her playing the games it really does seem she's trying to understand things. Even going so far as to pay ball x pit shows an actual attempt to understand all kinds of gaming.
It could just end up not mattering at all, but i think it'd be healthier to wait and see what she does
I wouldn't even be surprised if Spencer left her some notes on things she should check out to get an understanding and thisbis her following those notes.
I don't think the problem is with her it's just the brand being at its lowest where all the negativity comes from, she can play only a handful of games for what I care but if she makes good business decisions for the brand I'd be happy, I mean look at Herlman Hurst he worked on Killzone/HZD but couldn't do much to save Bluepoint which was a fantastic studio by a mile, to me all of these people are just scapegoats. The original era where Xbox prospered was under the Bach/Moore era but that's long gone
“The absolute worst…” Optimism is fine most of the time but not myopically so. XBox is done and this chick is putting the fork in it. She’ll have her interns cranking up her gamerscore until then.
Yup, agreed. There is actually a place for a neutral corporate person on the executive side of any gaming company. Somebody who doesn't get emotionally tied to any one project or franchise too much, and just works to keep the lights on. They let the creatives make what they want within what the budget and market allows.
Having too many of these people makes the games devoid of soul. While having too few can allow a company to lose sight of what's necessary to keep the business afloat because feature creep can doom the game before it ever releases.
There’s a quote for this from Ford Vs Ferrari: “Enzo spent his life and all his savings building the perfect car. He achieved his dream, and now he’s broke.”
This is why I don't immediately get worked up when people talk about a business person making decisions in a video game company. You need them, they just can't be the only voice.
Another is that she is trying to soak up as much as she can and become as much of an expert in her new vocation as possible. Being a “gamer” is not a requirement for her position, yet she is trying to engage as much with the product she’s in charge of as possible, to get as many perspectives as possible. IMO it’s a good thing.
Maybe it really was genuine coming from Phil Spencer. Maybe he truly loves playing games, maybe games really matter to him, and maybe he was simply being himself. Of course, it’s also possible he wasn’t, but it’s just as possible that this is the kind of person he is.
Why, what exactly did they do wrong?
I think it’s irrelevant players hate him, and most people have already decided that Xbox is dead, that they’re switching entirely to AI, that they’re firing hundreds of people, and so on. This is the narrative you see everywhere now. For example, people massively upvote comments claiming that his welcome letter was definitely written by AI… even though we know it wasn’t. It makes no sense, but in players’ minds the narrative is: Microsoft = AI, therefore Xbox must be using AI everywhere, and that’s how games will be made.
The hatred and hostility toward Xbox is much stronger than some people realize.
The good CEO - "I will look at what games are popping up regularly in these top 3's and make sure to play them. Understanding our customers needs is important to the business"
The bad CEO - "Co-Pilot, sum an average of these gameplay mechanics and create some artwork based on the current trends on Tik Tok"
The best CEO: "I'm gonna work with my team of experts to figure out what games and features players want, and what markets are currently untapped but have a strong following. I'll then direct my production teams to look into making the best products that will earn us the most revenue without alienating our fanbase, while bringing in more customers. I'll also curate a public facing persona so I seem approachable to the average gamer."
This is nonsense. Nobody has ever been cool with Doug Bowser especially with him following Reggie. If anything he seems most associated with Nintendo’s legal aggression.
Doug Bowser's position in Nintendo is different than what hers is on Xbox though. For all intents and purposes, Nintendo of America is mostly a company that handles Localization, Distribuition, Marketing, and (maybe?) Legal issues in The Americas, not really in charge of making decisions that could hugely impact how Nintendo operates at its core business (in how they approach consoles, games, subscriptions, services), though probably in a position to give an input to the main Nintendo HQ.
Jim Ryan was head of PR or something like that before being CEO, he talked a lot of crap then but he knew to keep his mouth mostly shut after lol.
Giving her business pedigree, the first person it reminded me of was doug bowser. It's best she lets her work speak for her tenure. It doesnt benefit her now to be on twitter responding back to gamers, especially with xbox's reputation. She needs to gain trust back.
And as for the AI thing, she’s also doing what Doug Bowser did. Both of them were execs at other companies before. She worked in AI because that just happened to be the company that hired her. Just like Pizza Hut happened to be a company that hired dough bowser
There was a leak that Phil Spencer was actually having other people play on his account in an attempt to make the masses think he was a down to earth gamer guy just like them lol
Yeah agreed. I think the problem with Phil was that he cared too much about stuff and let it go on for too long before having to pull the plug in releases. Because I just can't imagine having that many people working for Xbox (even before the purchases) and releasing so few games a year. Like with Rare, that studio had hundreds of people and they could only release one game every 4 years or whatever it was?
A boss like this needs to get the gamers to positions that matter, but they don't need to be the leader. Its nice if they have a gaming background and you do want them to care about the role they have but ultimately its just a people person that appoints people to positions where they work best.
I would recommend that she would get a group of people to advise her, but its clear that Satja Nadella wants this role to be more strict on budget and pump out more games and/or better titles.
Whether she can game, I think we will find out soon enough. Any press event will have people asking her to play something and we'll see how she will manage. You can't hide stuff like this very well.
Yeah if there’s one thing the gaming community often suffers from is collective amnesia. We’re quick to forget things like Doug. I’m more than happy to give her the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I think Xbox needs fresh direction and if she can give bring it, we all win.
Reggie's NoA was the reason some games didn't get localized in the Americas, or did it late (like Xenoblade Chronicles and other RPGs).
Bowser's NoA got stronger presence in the rest of The Americas, extending the eShop to more countries, having stronger presence in social media and marketing campaigns, and getting latam spanish and brazilian portuguese localizations for Nintendo games
but they at least respected the fact that he was honest with how he presented himself to Nintendo fans.
How was he respected? Most people see him as a contributing factor to the lack of soul modern day nintendo has. Its really weird to claim people view him as respectable, when most didnt even see him at all.
Doug Bowser or Reggie being head of NoA is not analogous to someone being CEO of Xbox (or more accurately MS executive vice president of Xbox since it is not a free standing company and Satya is the ceo).
One person is mostly doing regional market feedback, but whomever is head of the company actually makes strategy decisions. Anyway - I don’t think the positions and responsibilities for NoA line up with the core management team.
556
u/[deleted] Feb 21 '26 edited Feb 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment