From a business standpoint: yes they should continue to make games for all other platforms. From a brand perspective: This would finally solve Microsoft's problem of not having relevant exclusives.
In the end I think the business perspective will win. Microsoft already said several times that they don´t see Sony as competition. They have a different endgame and soon you will not even need a Xbox to play those games on your TV.
If they don't, then it's the biggest mistake they could make as a corporation. The truth of the matter is that Sony IS competition, whether Microsoft wants to admit or not. Being competition does not mean you can't work together with said competition; we've seen it as far back as Sega providing jewel cases to Sony back in 1995 when Sony had a shortage for PS1 Western game releases.
At the end of the day, Microsoft wants to grow revenue and profits, but not at the expense of their own ecosystem. If they bring all or even most of those Zenimax games to other platforms like PS5 Day-and-Date, they lose potential Series sales AND Gamepass subs, because there is little incentive for PlayStation players to consider going with either at that point. Not only that, but Microsoft also loses 30% in profits for all copies sold in the PS ecosystem, AND Microsoft potentially risks losing goodwill with sections of the hardcore/core Xbox community who have been holding out to the platform bolstering its exclusive 1P content.
That's a lot to give up, or potentially give up, simply for more software revenue but potentially only
marginally better net profits. If I'm wrong though, well, there will be corrections to be made and I'm not necessarily sure if things will work out for Microsoft the way they believe they will if indeed anything beyond ESO/F'76 and those types of games come to PlayStation and Nintendo, especially Day-and-Date.
Ok so change the word netflix to HBO
No. Make a better argument or don't make one at all.
I love how MS capitalizing on the 100M ps userbase makes sense but Sony capitalizing on the 60M xboxes + hundreds of millions of pc gamers doesn't.
Quite the irony, isn't it? It's okay for Sony to leave money on the table in not bringing any of their owned content to Xbox/PC platforms because apparently they are a charity and saintly, but greedy Microsoft must absolutely bring their content to platforms they don't own because they are not a charity and can't leave money on the table.
I think people romanticize these corporations way too much xD.
1. The valid reason is money.
2. The purchases in Zenimax just double down on existing strengths in WRPG's and FPS. Its not going to broaden their appeal.
3. MS primary focus is selling software services, not hardware. Day #1 Exclusivity on GP serves this goal.
4. Pushing full exclusivity forces the competition to reciprocate, especially when they enjoy greater marketshare.
5. MS cannot "own" gaming, the competition is too established and well funded, so trying to kill them off by starving them of content is a fool's errand.
6. Divesting Zenimax of all multi-platform support is improbable in the short term as it would require massive reorganization and accompanying disruption.
1: By that notion then why don't you pontificate Sony or Nintendo bringing their software to more ecosystems more readily? After all, they are corporations too. They also want to grow their profits.
2: They are among arguably the most popular genre of games in the industry right now; a company able to secure a lot of those types of games as ecosystem exclusives, drives a large amount of potential attention to their ecosystem at the expense of an ecosystem lacking in those types of games.
3: Within reason. If that software and services comes at the expense of their hardware ecosystem and, in the case of Xbox, loyal fanbases in that ecosystem, then they will not pursue it. You should also keep in mind that them bringing native ports of games to PS and Nintendo platforms Day-and-Date with Xbox versions, even if those versions are in Gamepass, destroys a lot of potential subscription growth because that conditions PS/Nintendo gamers to simply buy the games on the platform instead, meaning less Gamepass subs, less consoles sold and less profit on software sales (since they automatically lose 30% profits to Sony and Nintendo).
4: They can only reciprocate by means of which they can realistically do, though. If push came to shove and, say, Sony & Microsoft entered a bidding war for another massive publisher, Microsoft would win if their intent is acquisition at all costs, since they simply have more resources to work with. And really, it's just the kind of game Sony cannot play at the same level, but they should be aware of this because when they (Sony) first entered the industry as a platform holder they leveraged their own resource advantage over competitors like Sega and Nintendo.
5: True, but essentially stealth-asking them to not bother competing in a realistic way whatsoever is also a fool's errand. You assume an intent by stating they want to "own" gaming; basically by insisting a negative connotation because they have the financial means to purchase various companies is an oddly anti-capitalistic stance to take (or at least it's an anti-corporate argument that can easily fall into that designation...not that I'm against a specific form of corporatism in the form of hyper-capitalist corporatism though). You are trying to, basically, use an emotive argument to guilt-trip them into not leveraging their own advantages in the market.
I think you should take a look at gaming history before making these kind of statements, because this is something Sony actually did to Sega. Sega were a much more entrenched company in the gaming industry at the time Sony came out with the PS1. However, Sony did exactly what you're saying Microsoft can't expect to do and be successful: starving 3P support from competitors (particularly Sega, but also Nintendo) through publishing deals and agreements, exclusivity contracts, and leveraging their own fab production plants, assembly pipelines and distribution chains in ways Sega and Nintendo never could.
Except...Sony managed to make that work. And on a pure theoretical basis, ANY company with the resource means to take up such a strategy, could make it work if they really want it to. So ultimately your argument here falls apart.
6: Well it's a good thing they aren't doing that right off the bat, isn't it? After all, Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathproof are still coming to PS5 as timed exclusives, and in the off-chance the Indiana Jones game was already locked for multiplat release beforehand, that will also come to other ecosystems. However, you should also be aware that Microsoft and Zenimax have been having these discussions since 2017. Just something to keep in mind...