Support NeoGAF

[Xaero Gravity]

People keep mentiomning Minecraft but wasnt Minecraft already on Playstation when Microsoft bought them?, i could be totally wrong there.
Besides Phil already said in numerous interviews, including live on CNBC that they bought Bethesda for 'the Xbox community', and will only honour the current contract in place with Sony. He DID say in one of the interviews that they will look at other consoles on a 'game by game bases', but he could of been talking about Switch for all we know. Plus i very much doubt the real big hitters, the potential system sellers in Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and Doom, would be releasing on PS5. The best you could hope for is the Dishonoreds and preys, and even then i dont think that will happen.

If I remember correctly, MS bought Mojang sometime in November of 2014, and it was released on PS4 two months before.

Edit: Looks like the acquisition went through in November, but the announcement was made 10 days or so after it was released on PS4

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

Agreed. I think the cost of this deal is so fucking huge, that its more likely you'll see those major AAA titles on Playstation, Nintendo etc. The cost is simply too high.

At 2.5 billion for 1 team, Minecraft can't afford to be on 1 system.
Yet 7.5 billion for several teams outputting AAA games folks really think it won't be multiplatform?

I simply see this as MS transitioning into being a 3rd party publisher. When you have a 100 million install base with Playstation and a 150 million potentioal install base with Nintendo, its extremly unlikely at such a massive cost at 7.5 billion that they'd be looking to LIMIT systems.

They didn't do that with Minecraft, that game had tons of spin offs that released on like 5 or 6 platforms NOT OWNED BY MS. So if they'll do that with 1 IP, I have a hard time believing spending 3x times that suddenly means they'll want to make even less or something. Very, very likely you'll see Elder Scrolls VI, Starfield, Fallout 5 on PS5, like you'll see Doom and other IP on Switch or what ever Nintendo puts out next. Based on how MS treated their last massive deal, I see this no different then that Minecraft deal.

I think that's what they been planning to do all along. Look at Apple for instance. They realized they can't sell a 1k+ device every year, might as well switch over to services. Microsoft has been building this up for some time, and if they can touch Xbox, pc, ps4/5 players, why the hell not. They profit from sales, services, and MTX, all across the board.

This also forces Sony to release their games to PC sooner than anticipated. They were playing chess while Sony was playing checkers.

 

[Stuart360]

Agreed. I think the cost of this deal is so fucking huge, that its more likely you'll see those major AAA titles on Playstation, Nintendo etc. The cost is simply too high.

At 2.5 billion for 1 team, Minecraft can't afford to be on 1 system.
Yet 7.5 billion for several teams outputting AAA games folks really think it won't be multiplatform?

I simply see this as MS transitioning into being a 3rd party publisher. When you have a 100 million install base with PlayStation and a 150 million potential install base with Nintendo, its extremely unlikely at such a massive cost at 7.5 billion that they'd be looking to LIMIT systems.

They didn't do that with Minecraft, that game had tons of spin offs that released on like 5 or 6 platforms NOT OWNED BY MS. So if they'll do that with 1 IP, I have a hard time believing spending 3x times that suddenly means they'll want to make even less or something. Very, very likely you'll see Elder Scrolls VI, Starfield, Fallout 5 on PS5, like you'll see Doom and other IP on Switch or what ever Nintendo puts out next. Based on how MS treated their last massive deal, I see this no different then that Minecraft deal.

How many more consoles do they need to release before this 10 year old meme goes away?

 

[Gavon West]

Agreed. I think the cost of this deal is so fucking huge, that its more likely you'll see those major AAA titles on Playstation, Nintendo etc. The cost is simply too high.

At 2.5 billion for 1 team, Minecraft can't afford to be on 1 system.
Yet 7.5 billion for several teams outputting AAA games folks really think it won't be multiplatform?

I simply see this as MS transitioning into being a 3rd party publisher. When you have a 100 million install base with PlayStation and a 150 million potential install base with Nintendo, its extremely unlikely at such a massive cost at 7.5 billion that they'd be looking to LIMIT systems.

They didn't do that with Minecraft, that game had tons of spin offs that released on like 5 or 6 platforms NOT OWNED BY MS. So if they'll do that with 1 IP, I have a hard time believing spending 3x times that suddenly means they'll want to make even less or something. Very, very likely you'll see Elder Scrolls VI, Starfield, Fallout 5 on PS5, like you'll see Doom and other IP on Switch or what ever Nintendo puts out next. Based on how MS treated their last massive deal, I see this no different then that Minecraft deal.

Let me get this right: They spent 7.5 billion dollars to help make their competitor look good with THEIR games? Ill make you a bet right now: MS will honor the contracts in place. But once those are up, most all of their games will go exclusive to the Xbox and PC platform with a title going to Nintendo every now and again -- at best.

 

[Neko Mimi Mode]

Agreed. I think the cost of this deal is so fucking huge, that its more likely you'll see those major AAA titles on Playstation, Nintendo etc. The cost is simply too high.

At 2.5 billion for 1 team, Minecraft can't afford to be on 1 system.
Yet 7.5 billion for several teams outputting AAA games folks really think it won't be multiplatform?

I simply see this as MS transitioning into being a 3rd party publisher. When you have a 100 million install base with PlayStation and a 150 million potential install base with Nintendo, its extremely unlikely at such a massive cost at 7.5 billion that they'd be looking to LIMIT systems.

They didn't do that with Minecraft, that game had tons of spin offs that released on like 5 or 6 platforms NOT OWNED BY MS. So if they'll do that with 1 IP, I have a hard time believing spending 3x times that suddenly means they'll want to make even less or something. Very, very likely you'll see Elder Scrolls VI, Starfield, Fallout 5 on PS5, like you'll see Doom and other IP on Switch or what ever Nintendo puts out next. Based on how MS treated their last massive deal, I see this no different then that Minecraft deal.

Why do people keep using Minecraft as an example? It's clearly targeting a different audience than AAA first party games and, if it counts for anything, Notch allegedly put multiplatform support as a condition in it's sale.

MS aren't publishing their big IPs third party and they don't need to. You're out of your God damned mind if you actually believe this.

 

[Starfield]

Sony bought a developer for $200M. Microsoft bought a publisher for $7.5B.

They're not even close to the same thing.

Yet it contains the same message. Sony could sell millions of copies on Xbox and pc but they decided against it to keep consumers in their eco system. Why do you believe ms won't do the same?

 

[intheinbetween]

Why do people keep using Minecraft as an example? It's clearly targeting a different audience than AAA first party games and, if it counts for anything, Notch allegedly put multiplatform support as a condition in his sale.

MS aren't publishing their big IPs third party and they don't need to. You're out of your God damned mind if you actually believe this.

It’s more convenient to use Minecraft, instead of Obsidian because of “reasons”

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

Yet it contains the same message. Sony could sell millions of copies on Xbox and pc but they decided against it to keep consumers in their eco system. Why do you believe ms won't do the same?

Sony is reaching out to PC this gen. Actually before the gen even started. They realized there's money to be made, they just can't half ass their ports. PC gamers spend money where it's worth it. Otherwise we would be on toasters.

 

[Gavon West]

Yet it contains the same message. Sony could sell millions of copies on Xbox and pc but they decided against it to keep consumers in their eco system. Why do you believe ms won't do the same?

All of this

 

[eyesabitdull]

Hands down, the greatest flex in the race leading up to the next generation of consoles.

They single handedly gave a HUGE reason to get an Xbox console and/or Gamepass (for PC) to anyone who was in doubt.

Sure, everyone is right to say that these new games won't come in a few years, but the point is - they will be coming.

Oof, I'm intrigued by what that might look like.

 

[Grinchy]

Yet it contains the same message. Sony could sell millions of copies on Xbox and pc but they decided against it to keep consumers in their eco system. Why do you believe ms won't do the same?

Because a publisher makes money from publishing games. MS bought a publisher. I can see them doing timed exclusives and day 1 gamepass things to make people see Elder Scrolls as an "Xbox" or "game pass" game first and foremost, but they sure as hell aren't giving up the ability to sell it 6 times with re-releases on the Playstation ecosystem.

Time will tell. I can see a game like Dishonored being exclusive, because who cares. But Elder Scrolls? It just sounds implausible to me that they'd make it fully exclusive.

 

[Starfield]

Sony is reaching out to PC this gen. Actually before the gen even started. They realized there's money to be made, they just can't half ass their ports. PC gamers spend money where it's worth it. Otherwise we would be on toasters.

Selling older games to pc players in order to get them on ps5 with the sequel isn't "reaching" out. PC gamers laugh in 3080

 

[EDMIX]

Why do people keep using Minecraft as an example? It's clearly targeting a different audience than AAA first party games and, if it counts for anything, Notch allegedly put multiplatform support as a condition in it's sale.

MS aren't publishing their big IPs third party and they don't need to. You're out of your God damned mind if you actually believe this.

Simple. So was Rare's games, yet must of those IP didn't just continue to appear on Nintendo.

Its not simply because of the "audience", its because they paid 2.5 BILLION for it. That cost is what made many, many people realize they just couldn't afford to have it only on XB or even PC for that matter.
So I don't think its the audience solely, I think its simply the difference from 370 million to 2.5 billion. Once you get to such a cost, it literally makes no sense to not have it on many, many platforms.

The bigger the IP, the bigger the cost...I'd argue how expensive those series are might be literally the very reason why they can't actually afford to leave them on 1 system....

DonJuanSchlong Agreed.

I think that's what they been planning to do all along. Look at Apple for instance. They realized they can't sell a 1k+ device every year, might as well switch over to services.

I think you'll end up seeing Gamepass on all devices in the future as MS seems to want that badly. Makes complete sense.

intheinbetween yea well...one of those IPs cost billions to buy so....sounds like a very solid reason to have it on many systems to recoup that cost. Like a very, very logical reason.

Grinchy "Elder Scrolls? It just sounds implausible to me that they'd make it fully exclusive" Agreed.

They simply paid too much for those IP to really make less money.

 

[captainraincoat]

Skyrim and flight sim crossover time

 

[Gavon West]

This is a long game play. TES alone sells consoles. In this case it'll sell subscriptions too. As will the next Doom, etc. GP is the end game. That's probably the primary reason why you can expect all of these games to stay exclusive. The more subscriptions the more money they make every single month. If GP wasnt a part of the equation, Id say most of you saying they'd still make these games multiplatform are probably right. That's not the case here. No way they invested this kind of money to bolster the competitions console, too. That's just stupid. They couldve locked down a GP deal for all these games and saved themselves billions of dollars. They bought the whole rack!

 

[Starfield]

Because a publisher makes money from publishing games. MS bought a publisher. I can see them doing timed exclusives and day 1 gamepass things to make people see Elder Scrolls as an "Xbox" or "game pass" game first and foremost, but they sure as hell aren't giving up the ability to sell it 6 times with re-releases on the Playstation ecosystem.

Time will tell. I can see a game like Dishonored being exclusive, because who cares. But Elder Scrolls? It just sounds implausible to me that they'd make it fully exclusive.

It sounds implausible bc many people still haven't swallowed that pill yet. Don't worry as time Flys by people come to terms with it.

There's alot if people who'd rather see a dishonored go multiplat instead of tes

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

Selling older games to pc players in order to get them on ps5 with the sequel isn't "reaching" out. PC gamers laugh in 3080

It won't just be older games. They can't convince PC players to get a ps5 right now, or later on with giving us old games. Most of us wouldn't buy even with new ps5 exclusives, as we have hardware advantage. That's why it makes sense for them to put games on PC day and date. Might not happen right now since Jim Ryan gave that 3-4 year cross-gen speech. But it'll happen.

 

[Nankatsu]

This is one of those news that I think it's great for the buyer, horrible for the industry.

And it's typical MS. A big fat check.

Still a huge Megaton on their end.

 

[Redlight]

What good is 15 mill subs when you can sell 10 mill of one game son which give you more money then your sub in the first place. I can see your cocky but not confident in Ms since your aint taking any bets messing your are even doubting their own plan, lol Sony and nintendo will mop ms again this gen

It's a big publisher with a bunch of quality titles that will be great for Xbox and for Xbox owners.

It certainly isn't the end of Sony. They will survive and, likely thrive, just with much tougher competition, especially in the key US and UK markets.

I am enjoying every single letter of your uber-salty posts though. Keep 'em coming.

 

[Neko Mimi Mode]

Simple. So was Rare's games, yet must of those IP didn't just continue to appear on Nintendo.

Its not simply because of the "audience", its because they paid 2.5 BILLION for it. That cost is what made many, many people realize they just couldn't afford to have it only on XB or even PC for that matter.
So I don't think its the audience solely, I think its simply the difference from 370 million to 2.5 billion. Once you get to such a cost, it literally makes no sense to not have it on many, many platforms.

The bigger the IP, the bigger the cost...I'd argue how expensive those series are might be literally the very reason why they can't actually afford to leave them on 1 system....

Microsoft already have big IPs they don't push multiplat.

Your entire argument is predicated on some bizarre notion that MS can't overlook the money from selling their IPs to Sony, but they've been doing that already for decades.

What makes your argument even worse is that Sony aren't expected to do the same with their IPs. It smacks of desperation at this point.

Look at it more simply. You know Halo right? Well that's The Elder Scrolls, Fallout and Doom now. Sorry.

 

[CatLady]

Agreed. I think the cost of this deal is so fucking huge, that its more likely you'll see those major AAA titles on Playstation, Nintendo etc. The cost is simply too high.

At 2.5 billion for 1 team, Minecraft can't afford to be on 1 system.
Yet 7.5 billion for several teams outputting AAA games folks really think it won't be multiplatform?

I simply see this as MS transitioning into being a 3rd party publisher. When you have a 100 million install base with PlayStation and a 150 million potential install base with Nintendo, its extremely unlikely at such a massive cost at 7.5 billion that they'd be looking to LIMIT systems.

They didn't do that with Minecraft, that game had tons of spin offs that released on like 5 or 6 platforms NOT OWNED BY MS. So if they'll do that with 1 IP, I have a hard time believing spending 3x times that suddenly means they'll want to make even less or something. Very, very likely you'll see Elder Scrolls VI, Starfield, Fallout 5 on PS5, like you'll see Doom and other IP on Switch or what ever Nintendo puts out next. Based on how MS treated their last massive deal, I see this no different then that Minecraft deal.

If you want to play Starfield, Doom, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, etc. we have a console for that; it's called Xbox.

I love the dreams of Sony fans that Xbox turns into a 3rd party publisher, just here to make games for Sony.

Of course that's why Xbox spent millions on the series S/X so they could make games for Sony. Sorry Sony moneyhatting every 3rd party in sight didn't work out for you in the end, go away with your port-begging.

 

[Stuart360]

Because a publisher makes money from publishing games. MS bought a publisher. I can see them doing timed exclusives and day 1 gamepass things to make people see Elder Scrolls as an "Xbox" or "game pass" game first and foremost, but they sure as hell aren't giving up the ability to sell it 6 times with re-releases on the Playstation ecosystem.

Time will tell. I can see a game like Dishonored being exclusive, because who cares. But Elder Scrolls? It just sounds implausible to me that they'd make it fully exclusive.

I see it the opposite,. I could see the likes of Dishonored, Prey, possibly Wolfenstein, releasing on PS5, but the potential system sellers in Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and Doom, no chance for me, not uinless Sony backs down and allows Gamepass on PS5.
And thats the best case scenario for me, i dont actually believe they will release any games on PS5 (outside of potential Gampass on PS5). I could see some coming to Switch, but thts it for me.

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

Simple. So was Rare's games, yet must of those IP didn't just continue to appear on Nintendo.

Its not simply because of the "audience", its because they paid 2.5 BILLION for it. That cost is what made many, many people realize they just couldn't afford to have it only on XB or even PC for that matter.
So I don't think its the audience solely, I think its simply the difference from 370 million to 2.5 billion. Once you get to such a cost, it literally makes no sense to not have it on many, many platforms.

The bigger the IP, the bigger the cost...I'd argue how expensive those series are might be literally the very reason why they can't actually afford to leave them on 1 system....

DonJuanSchlong Agreed.




I think you'll end up seeing Gamepass on all devices in the future as MS seems to want that badly. Makes complete sense.

intheinbetween yea well...one of those IPs cost billions to buy so....sounds like a very solid reason to have it on many systems to recoup that cost. Like a very, very logical reason.

Grinchy "Elder Scrolls? It just sounds implausible to me that they'd make it fully exclusive" Agreed.

They simply paid too much for those IP to really make less money.

Gamepass will definitely be on every device it can be on. They want to be the Netflix of gaming. They don't care what hardware you are on, they'll give you great games to play or buy (at a discount too, for being a subscriber).

 

[Airbus Jr]

If you want to play Starfield, Doom, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, etc. we have a console for that; it's called Xbox.

I love the dreams of Sony fans that Xbox turns into a 3rd party publisher, just here to make games for Sony.

Of course that's why Xbox spent millions on the series S/X so they could make games for Sony. Sorry Sony moneyhatting every 3rd party in sight didn't work out for you in the end, go away with your port-begging.

Gamepass would probably be on every devices including my PC so you prob wont necesarly need xbox for that

 

[EDMIX]

It won't just be older games. They can't convince PC players to get a ps5 right now, or later on with giving us old games. Most of us wouldn't buy even with new ps5 exclusives, as we have hardware advantage. That's why it makes sense for them to put games on PC day and date. Might not happen right now since Jim Ryan gave that 3-4 year cross-gen speech. But it'll happen.

Agreed. I think its more likely then not. Even if its God Of War 2018, The Last Of Us 2, Ghost etc. If they goal is to get those PC gamers to buy a PS4 or PS5 later down the road, ultimately that will get normal enough for them to just wait.

It simply doesn't make sense.


So...God Of War 2018, The Last Of Us 2, Ghost Of Tsushima etc all come to PC this gen....

Doesn't that just mean they'll wait till next gen for God Of War 2, The Last Of Us 3, Ghost Of Tsushima 2 etc to just come to PC anyway? If it can work on PC, it makes sense for them to sell it on PC when they can, even if its just a port a year later or something like how Rockstar does, but you can't really get someone to buy a console this way as to even continue putting the game on PC, is them getting the game anyway without buying the console. So I think Sony can put their titles on PC if a market exist while still selling to their core install base, but the titles must be well optimized and they shouldn't have either install base feeling like one is holding the other back or something.

 

[Grinchy]

I see it the opposite,. I could see the likes of Dishonored, Prey, possibly Wolfenstein, releasing on PS5, but the potential system sellers in Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and Doom, no chance for me, not uinless Sony backs down and allows Gamepass on PS5.
And thats the best case scenario for me, i dont actually believe they will release any games on PS5 (outside of potential Gampass on PS5). I could see some coming to Switch, but thts it for me.

It's going to be very interesting to see how it all plays out for sure.

 

[EDMIX]

Microsoft already have big IPs they don't push multiplat.

Your entire argument is predicated on some bizarre notion that MS can't overlook the money from selling their IPs to Sony, but they've been doing that already for decades.

What makes your argument even worse is that Sony aren't expected to do the same with their IPs. It smacks of desperation at this point.

Look at it more simply. You know Halo right? Well that's The Elder Scrolls, Fallout and Doom now. Sorry.

Not really. MS has never spent over a billion for any IP that just stayed on 1 platform.

Once they spend a certain amount like we saw from Minecraft, they put them on all devices.

"What makes your argument even worse is that Sony aren't expected to" ???

This isn't about Sony.

This topic is about MS.

Sony has yet to buy any massive publisher or IP for 2.5 billion or 7.5 billion etc. Shit, if they do I'll be the first to tell you that such a purchase is too massive to really think they are keeping the IP on 1 system as it simply doesn't make sense. You seem to be under this impression that I'm just saying it to make you upset or something, they also didn't buy Halo and those other IP for 2.5 billion or 7.5 billion etc.

CatLady "If you want to play Starfield, Doom, Fallout, Elder Scrolls" ??? I own a gaming PC.... so.... Like Minecraft, I simply don't see those IP 100% only staying on limited systems, MS will look to recoup like they always do. Especially since they are literally spending 3x more then what they spent on 1 IP, sounds doubtful that they wouldn't want a return on a Sony and Nintendo install base.

thats what they did with Minecraft so.... I'm not even sure how I'm begging, its literally coming to a system I already own them on

 

[carlosrox]

I'm not gonna hate on this move at all.

Didn't a lot of these series get their big break thanks to PC (ie MS) ?

I mean, lookit Doom for example. Fallout?


Either way, I don't have much problem with this.

 

[Gavon West]

Because a publisher makes money from publishing games. MS bought a publisher. I can see them doing timed exclusives and day 1 gamepass things to make people see Elder Scrolls as an "Xbox" or "game pass" game first and foremost, but they sure as hell aren't giving up the ability to sell it 6 times with re-releases on the Playstation ecosystem.

Time will tell. I can see a game like Dishonored being exclusive, because who cares. But Elder Scrolls? It just sounds implausible to me that they'd make it fully exclusive.

Yeah. If you take out the millions of subs and consoles theyd sell due to just this one title on Xbox and PC. Thats not including everything else they have coming down the pike. This is no different than them acquiring NT or PGG, only, this is a conglomerate of games and developers under one roof. They'll keep all prior contracts in place. After that, no more.

 

[captainraincoat]

Rage
DOOM
The Evil Within
Dishonored
Prey
The Elders Scrolls
Wolfenstein
Fallout
Starfield

Think I’m forgetting some...

Quake off the top of my head

 

[DJT123]

Thinking about it, Sony definitely made a move that aggravated M$, which was making a readily available on release 3rd party game, Deathloop, a timed exclusive. The fact M$ bought the publisher of said title speaks volumes.

 

[Soleil rouge]

I’m buying both consoles eventually but it’s a tough decision for MS. If they want to sell as many game pass subs as possible and boost hardware sales it makes sense. But I wonder if the lost revenue by excluding the PlayStation audience makes it a wash?

I'd go for an extra long exclusivity period. Something like 2 years, followed by a massive promo campaign for the PS releases.

 

[Grinchy]

Yeah. If you take out the millions of subs and consoles theyd sell due to just this one title on Xbox and PC. Thats not including everything else they have coming down the pike. This is no different than them acquiring NT or PGG, only, this is a conglomerate of games and developers under one roof. They'll keep all prior contracts in place. After that, no more.

We'll see. Getting a few million people to sub to a month of game pass, or even 2 or 3 months, for Elder Scrolls is still way less than the cut that Bethesda would have taken from each potential $70 copy sold. As the developer and publisher of the game, that's something like 2/3 of the cut of that $70.

Letting people have it for $10 per month that they pay to play it instead of paying up front is an objectively riskier situation. But all of this remains to be seen. We really don't know how it'll play out yet. To just assume that every person will sub for $10-15 per month for the whole generation is a bold assumption IMO.

 

[EDMIX]

They'll keep all prior contracts in place. After that, no more.

I mean.....yet when they spent 2.5 billion, thats not really what happened with Minecraft. So Ninja Theory also didn't cost 2.5 billion......., yet they'll spend 3x times that and want to put games on less systems to make less money?

Doesn't really make a lot of sense.

 

[DrumNBassDanTTV]

MS need to be brutal, all current games in production like deathloop etc, let them be multiplatform but once those games are done, gotta be exclusive on PC/XB, have to be!

 

[Stuart360]

Thinking about it, Sony definitely made a move that aggravated M$, which was making a readily available on release 3rd party game, Deathloop, a timed exclusive. The fact M$ bought the publisher of said title speaks volumes.

Sorry but i dont think Deathloop had any effect on this lol.

 

[Gavon West]

We'll see. Getting a few million people to sub to a month of game pass, or even 2 or 3 months, for Elder Scrolls is still way less than the cut that Bethesda would have taken from each potential $70 copy sold. As the developer and publisher of the game, that's something like 2/3 of the cut of that $70.

Letting people have it for $10 per month that they pay to play it instead of paying up front is an objectively riskier situation. But all of this remains to be seen. We really don't know how it'll play out yet. To just assume that every person will sub for $10-15 per month for the whole generation is a bold assumption IMO.

Bethesda franchises on GP and GPU makes it less bold, and more of a possibility. Knowing other titles are coming to GP like Evil Within 3 or Doom 3 makes leaving GP that much harder. Its more profitable to get $10 or $15 dollars a month for one year for one game, than to sell it once for $60. That's not including all the DLC and skins, etc.

 

[xBlueStonex]

My favourite part of the thread so far is Sony fans begging MS to let their IPs be multiplat. The same posters who always say "if you want to play Sony IPs, buy a PS"

This times 10000000.

We've had to endure almost a decade of slander from Sony fans about Xbox not having any exclusives, and they absolutely raved when Sony made Spiderman exclusive to PS4. Now Microsoft goes ahead and makes tremendous moves to secure exclusives for Xbox and they cry about it? The hypocrisy there is absolutely insane. Either you're for exclusives or your not, but you can't have it both ways. Jesus.

Kudos to Microsoft for this incredible power play. This is exactly what Xbox needed right now going into next-gen. If they can also somehow acquire Rocksteady to make Gotham Knights an Xbox exclusive to rival Spiderman... we'll have ourselves a fight. Microsoft ain't playing around anymore.

 

[phil_t98]

oh god plz improve your reading comprehension. I said realistically MS doesnt makes 10 dollars but more like 2 dollars per subscriber and month.

Yeah and you have no evidence to prove every subscriber pays 2 dollars a month

 

[DJT123]

Sorry but i dont think Deathloop had any effect on this lol.

It means they negotiated with Zenimax at a furious pace, but the timing fits, I think.

 

[Gavon West]

I mean.....yet when they spent 2.5 billion, thats not really what happened with Minecraft. So Ninja Theory also didn't cost 2.5 billion......., yet they'll spend 3x times that and want to put games on less systems to make less money?

Doesn't really make a lot of sense.

It does if you plan to recoup your investment over a longer period of time. It makes perfect sense.

 

[Starfield]

The question is will Bethesda still have their own E3 presser? Or will they show their games at Xbox presser.

I'd say probably both. A small teaser/trailer for their big games on the Xbox stage with a fell Re eal on Bethesda stahe

 

[EDMIX]

It does if you plan to recoup your investment over a longer period of time. It makes perfect sense.

Sure, but based on how they treated Minecraft's buyout, I simply don't see that with spending 3x more, they'd want to take longer to get it back.


Unlikely.

Starfield I think they will. Apparently they will still actually publish their titles.

Bethesda Softworks Games Will Continue to be Self-Published

Bethesda Softworks games will continue to be published by Bethesda itself, Pete Hines has confirmed in a statement.

www.playstationlifestyle.net

.

 

[Stuart360]

I mean.....yet when they spent 2.5 billion, thats not really what happened with Minecraft. So Ninja Theory also didn't cost 2.5 billion......., yet they'll spend 3x times that and want to put games on less systems to make less money?

Doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Minecraft was already on PS4, just, when Microsoft bought Minecraft. And as another user said, the rumour was that the dev insisted on the game being multiplatform for the deal to go through.

Anyway just watch the Phil interview with CNBC. he literally said they bought Bethesda for the Xbox community, and the future games will be coming to Xbox, PC, and Gamepass. He even said how they now have 23 studios making games for Xbox.

 

[Lupin3]

I wonder how this will affect future distribution via Steam. Hopefully not at all, but there's a lot of money at play now.

 

[DonJuanSchlong]

I wonder how this will affect future distribution via Steam. Hopefully not at all, but there's a lot of money at play now.

Shouldn't at all. They wanna have a piece of every pie.

 

[Stuart360]

The question is will Bethesda still have their own E3 presser? Or will they show their games at Xbox presser.

I'd say probably both. A small teaser/trailer for their big games on the Xbox stage with a fell Re eal on Bethesda stahe

I think Bethesda will still have its own conference. Phil said their intention is to let them do their thing, and i think from the outsuide Bethesda will still operate as Bethesda.

 

[TheAssist]

Yeah and you have no evidence to prove every subscriber pays 2 dollars a month

No and I never said so. Right now MS is probably even losing money with every sub. Just like any service of this kind during its early phase. Spotify to this day has not had a profitable year. Netflix only recently managed to actually make some money.
Earning 2 dollars per month and sub is looking very favorably when looking at how much money they spend right now. I dont think they'll make money with it for the next few years. And thats fine. MS can do that, they have the money to sustain that practice. Many others dont which is why its a good tactic for them.

 

[Compsiox]

I wonder how this will affect future distribution via Steam. Hopefully not at all, but there's a lot of money at play now.

All Xbox games are on Steam day one now. Idk why that would change. Honestly it will probably only get better with the removal of the shitty bethesda launcher.

 

[Lupin3]

Shouldn't at all. They wanna have a piece of every pie.

I hope you're right.