Good to see you're so intellectually engaged in the discussion.
That's fair and good in an
ideal world, but we're talking business realities. By this logic, should not Sony provide their 1P games onto Xbox and Nintendo platforms? After all, prior to Insomniac the Spiderman games were multiplat
By this logic, why do so many people claim one of the PlayStation's greatest strengths to be its exclusives? And yes, they do also include 3P games on the platform as well, including 3P games that are part of franchises which have historically been multiplatform (Final Fantasy (arguably, considering they were establishing a trend of being multiplat in the 7th-gen), Street Fighter, etc.). So again, where is your equal accountability on both sides of this equation?
"The customers that would have switched are the ones that care enough for the IPs", which means that where the IPs go, the customers will most likely follow. Microsoft want more customers; it doesn't matter if they build the IP from scratch or buy the owners of them (they are doing both). Customers are customers at the end of the day and the end justifies the means when it comes to highly competitive business markets. You're basically insinuating that because, in your opinion, prior Microsoft IPs weren't enough to get customers to "switch" (btw there doesn't actually have to be any "switching" going on; most gamers engage in multiple platform ecosystems simultaneously believe it or not
), that they should not bother with creating or purchasing, but particularly purchasing, IP that they know will have that draw because....why, exactly?
Why basically say they should not leverage one of their biggest assets to gain an advantage, when companies like Sony have done the exact same thing throughout their time in the industry? You guys are making this into some weird ethical argument that only applies to one company out of the three when all three are businesses and are neither charities nor moral bastions to look up to. They want to earn money, and as long as the methods are legal, they will utilize them. End of story.
We've already seen what timed exclusive DLC content does for platforms because we saw a lot of it during 360/PS3 gen (in favor of the former) and again this past gen (in favor of PS4). But that only really makes a dent if you're already the market leader, which currently Microsoft clearly are not. And while I'm not necessarily saying they WANT to be the market leader (at least in units sold terms), they probably want to push their profits much higher because they know it is possible, and timed exclusive DLC content (or even Day-and-Date in Gamepass, if the same games are provided on competitor products at the same time) is simply not going to be enough for them to do that.
How that alienates the PlayStation market, I don't know, nor particularly care, and I don't think Microsoft cares much, either. Because I strongly doubt Sony cares about alienating the Xbox and PC markets with locking down timed exclusives, or Nintendo cares about alienating other markets by keeping all of their 1P content exclusive to only their systems. I also think you underestimate the actual number of single-platform owners who aren't necessarily married to that platform or ecosystem, i.e if the content they want is on a different product, they will simply...buy the other product alongside the one they already have, and likely switch back and forth between them as they feel. That's actually the case with the vast majority of gamers; only a very small fringe of the most hardcore are weirdly adamant about sticking to one very specific platform/brand/ecosystem and doing everything in their power to keep it that way (oh it is the purest of ironies).
Except none of this is actually particularly true.
"Gamepass can stand on its own by providing great value." Value as in what, exactly? If you mean in keeping it super-cheap or the $1-for-3-years deals, those are not sustainable. Eventually they will come to an end. If you mean value as in having the Bethesda/Zenimax games there Day 1 along with a lot of 3P content, then the latter of that may not be sustainable if Microsoft wants to eventually maximize revenue and profit from the service (they have to pay 3P publishers to put the games on the service).
Having the Bethesda games there Day 1 as an incentive cannot work in a vacuum, if those games are also on PlayStation day-and-date (albeit as not part of a service). Why? Because we are still talking the early part of the console generation, so we are dealing with mainly hardcore and core gamer adopters, who are not particularly fussed with spending money on a game they know they are going to play for a long time, which Bethesda games tend to fit the bill of. So for those type of games specifically, it actually makes more sense to keep them ecosystem-exclusive because the primary adopters and early adopters of those type of games are not particularly against paying for those games on a competitor product/ecosystem if they are also provided there (price isn't necessarily an issue for them).
"The question then arises, will Sony fans pack away their PS5’s and move? Some will, but millions won’t." This is, quite simply, console warrior thinking. You guys are very ardent on a false reality that the vast majority of gamers are single-platform gamers, and religiously married to a single brand. They aren't. They will go where the games go, but that doesn't mean one platform has to suffer simply for the other to grow. That's the part in all of this you guys constantly miss, and it's not like 7th-gen was all that long ago, either (arguably the best example of what I'm describing here; even in the handheld space PSP did very well with 80+ million units).
The amount of gamers you think would feel indifferent or jaded enough to not go to another platform where the game they want to play is on, is actually quite small. Don't act like 120 million people bought PS4s for simply one game or one type of game (outside of potentially GTA5). The point of locking specific types of games, like the kind Bethesda generally make genre-wise, as platform/ecosystem exclusives is to target a slice of a competitor's userbase and entice them to invest into your own. Not even necessarily exclusively, but as a supplementary it would work as well because at that point both ecosystems are now benefiting instead of simply just one.
Your argument about "leaving revenue on the table", to keep Gamepass prices low etc., is illogical. Again, we're talking about specific types of gamers (in terms of gamer type and genre taste) when it comes to Bethesda-style games; THESE people are not fussed about spending money outright on a game if that game is on their current preferred platform/ecosystem (PlayStation in this case). And because of that, if they buy the game on PlayStation out of convenience, that not only potentially means one less sale of that game on Xbox and/or PC, but also means one less potential Gamepass subscriber, plus losing 30% in profit for each PlayStation copy sold.
A pretty big loss of advantage for Microsoft that stunts growth of their subscription service, can negatively impact console sales (even though they keep saying they don't care about units sold, they know that console sales are still important even towards Gamepass, let alone in general) and also generate bad will from hardcore/core fans of the Xbox platform who decided to invest in the new consoles on the promise of 1P content in general that would set it apart from competitors (and not simply a means of accessing that 1P content which is otherwise available on other console platforms).
Hmm, interesting. So tell me then, when did Sony approve of a native Gamepass app on PlayStation consoles? Did I miss the news sometime over the course of the week?
Truth is they haven't. However, Microsoft already have a means of providing Gamepass on PlayStation (and Nintendo Switch) that pretty much circumvents needing a native app; they are already working on a browser workaround for iOS devices, and since that will be browser-based, theoretically any internet-connected device with a built-in browser should also be able to access Gamepass via this method.
Yes it is not a replacement for natively playing the games (it'd also mean you'd need GPU), but it's a backdoor essentially and if PlayStation & Nintendo gamers really want to play those games, but for various reasons don't want to buy a MS system, nor play on their PC or their smartphone, then they could technically do it through the browser via Xcloud streaming. So in a way, yes it seems like Microsoft are fully committed to the Gamepass model, but that in no way actually means they need to release these games on PlayStation (which would contradict commitment to the GP model, anyway).
Your 5-8 years estimate can be trimmed down 1, maybe 2 years tops, going by their efforts with a browser-based Gamepass/Xcloud access point already in the works for iOS (and surely will be accessible through other browsers too, including those Sony and Nintendo use for their systems).
"Franchises like Fallout, Skyrim and Doom are beloved by millions of people. Not bringing them to all the fans possible would be a disastrous move."
Yeah, kinda like when Street Fighter 5 became a PlayStation console exclusive. But even though that game literally had a disastrous launch, it's very hard to try saying it was a "disaster" in terms of brand IP goodwill, now was it? Because guess what all the SF4 players who were on 360 did? They simply purchased PS4s to continue with SFV instead.
So why suddenly do you not think this would be something they do if Fallout, Skyrim, Doom etc. happen to go Xbox/PC-exclusive? And better yet, where does it say that people suddenly buying those means less sales of PlayStation 5 units? Surely if Sony's own actual 1P exclusives are strong enough draws as everyone says they are (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic; I
genuinely like a
lot of their 1P content and R&C: Rift Apart is looking to be GOTY material IMHO....though TLOU2 can kind of go suck rocks
), then they would still be able to push sales even if those Bethesda games are no longer on their platform...right?
Personally I am not even of the opinion literally every Bethesda/Zenimax game would suddenly become Xbox/PC-exclusive. Literal service games like ESO and Fallout '76 (and their sequels) will probably continue to have PlayStation versions, which makes sense. And potentially smaller games, like whatever is their next Death Loop or Ghostwire:Tokyo equivalent, I can see those being day-and-date between Xbox and PlayStation. However, the biggest games like the three you mention? IMHO Microsoft would have to be actively against their own self-interests to make those day-and-date with PlayStation or even Nintendo platforms, as that hurts Xbox install base growth and also Gamepass subscription rates, plus they lose 30% off the top in profits on those ecosystems, while getting very little or (in the case of Nintendo) nothing in return WRT Sony/Nintendo 1P content on Xbox/PC platforms and/or Gamepass.
At best, if such games are to come to other platforms, it's probably best to expect a 2-3 year gap in ports between Xbox/PC and other platform versions at the least, or potentially longer in some cases in all honesty. PlayStation/Nintendo gamers who can't wait that long still have a lot of options: buy a Series platform, play on PC, or play on a smart device like their phone/tablet etc. through Gamepass & Xcloud. Day-and-date of something like the next Skyrim or Doom with PlayStation/Switch would be a showing of vote of no confidence in Microsoft's own timeline for growth in their own ecosystem, especially if they get nothing in return from Sony and Nintendo when it comes to 1P content from them on Xbox and PC (including through Gamepass).