Can you imagine how many Xbox's Elder Scrolls 6 exclusive would ship?, and thats not even including system sellers like Doom and Fallout, then the Wolfensteins and Dishonoreds etc.
I would seriously have to question Microsofts long term gaming strategy if they put these on Playstation (and question their sanity).
The BEST i could see is if they put them on Playstation like 2 years after launch or somehting, as i doubt anyone would wait 2 years if they REALLY wanted to play say Elder Scrolls 6, 1 year maybe but 2+ years i doubt it.
This. The game having the definitive version is enough.As long as they support PC, I don't care.
Let's wait and see!it's what they will try to do. but is it what they will achieve ?
And yet...Cyberpunk 2077, as fatally flawed as it is, was the biggest digital launch ever...and just over 50% of its preorders were on PC. TW3 has also sold exceptionally well on PC. This myth that 99% of PC gamers are playing on potatoes incapable of running modern AAA titles is...well...a myth.Also, it seems that you mentioned PC as if millions of common gamers have a PC it's only a small amount of common gamers who even own a capable PC.
Elder Scrolls as a service. Time for more horse armor. Horse Armor HOOVES BAYBAY. I'm gonna pay for my horse's pedicure, gonna pay for my horse to have a happy face emoji, gonna pay for a kawaii cat tail and dat uguu face. Elder Scrolls 6: Land of Pays.Can you imagine how many Xbox's Elder Scrolls 6 exclusive would ship?, and thats not even including system sellers like Doom and Fallout, then the Wolfensteins and Dishonoreds etc.
I would seriously have to question Microsofts long term gaming strategy if they put these on Playstation (and question their sanity).
The BEST i could see is if they put them on Playstation like 2 years after launch or somehting, as i doubt anyone would wait 2 years if they REALLY wanted to play say Elder Scrolls 6, 1 year maybe but 2+ years i doubt it.
They should, since this will make more people experience great games. But they won't, since it's business, not a charity.I agree, but people claim that they should continue to support those platforms.
Games made by Bethesda may end up being like MLB The Show.
MLB The Show is both publish and develop by Sony and is now available on Xbox platforms.
It would be wise for Microsoft to do the same as it would bring it more revenue to sustain Game Pass.
Never EVER?Yep, they spent $7.5 billion just to make them day one on game pass, and have no other advantage outside of that. Sure, you can believe they will definitely release all the biggest titles on Playstation 5, even though supporting Playstation and getting those sales will never be a strong enough competitive advantage for the Xbox brand and Microsoft's services after spending $7.5 billion just to acquire them.
In order for that $7.5 billion to have the biggest impact possible for the purchasing company and their relevant businesses, the biggest and most exciting products/games must be exclusive to Xbox and PC. Occasionally release on Nintendo, but Playstation as a platform for specific major games as a simple matter of what's best for Microsoft and Xbox, must be cut off. It's really that simple. We all know Sony would never, EVER, purchase Bethesda only to share with Xbox. This is why Xbox must behave the same way. And this comes with the territory. If Sony purchased Bethesda, I would never be advocating they release games on Xbox, because it makes no strategic sense at all.
Harsh but true!Xbox gamers will give you this reply-
Yes, Make it exclusive as MS need exclusives desperately. You don't spend $7 billion to put your AAA games on the competition's platforms.
Ps gamers will give you this reply -
Look at Minecraft, that's on PS. So these games will definitely come to PS, plus MS need PS to recoup that 7b investment and MS doesn't believe in platform exclusives, they only care about money.
PC gamers will give you this reply -
I don't care as long as they are on PC and available on Steam day and date.
Switch gamers-
Huh what are Bethesda games? We only care about Nintendo games.
I want to see what happens when 12 flops is optimised by a game exclusively made for XsX, Xss is out.
I think Skyrim actually sold really well. Shame we never got a FO3/NV double pack.Switch gamers-
Huh what are Bethesda games? We only care about Nintendo games.
I want to read what you guys think, do you think Microsoft should take all of Bethesda games and keep them for themselves or share the games to PlayStation and Nintendo?
Because let's be honest, if Sony bought the studio they would take it all without any hesitation. But that's a topic someone else can make another time when we fully know what the extent of both companies deal comes to a finish.
So the question is simple, should they keep the games or share them with the rest of the world (PlayStation and Nintendo), and would it be beneficial for them to do either or?
You don't spend $7 billion to put your AAA games on the competition's platforms.
No. They did it to keep 3rd party out of the equation. Nintendo and Msoft could have developed an MLB game anytime they wanted. They were more concerned with keeping ea out of play.This happened simply as a contractual obligation, nothing more. Sony would have preferred to keep it exclusive and would have if MLB didn't force the multi-platform release during license negotiations. MS will own all the Zeni IP, so whatever they do, there will not be outside influence as with The Show.
Sony has exclusive rights to the MLB license, this is a fact. MLB was going to move on to EA if Sony didn't agree to make the release mult-plat. Facts. MS and Nintendo could not have made a MLB title since 2010 or 11, somewhere in there. This isn't a choice, same with the NFL.No. They did it to keep 3rd party out of the equation. Nintendo and Msoft could have developed an MLB game anytime they wanted. They were more concerned with keeping ea out of play.
“continue to see us shift towards a first or better or best approach on our platforms.”Microsoft Wants Bethesda Games 'First or Better or Best' on Xbox - IGN
Microsoft says that Bethesda games coming to cross-platform will be 'first or better or best' on an Xbox console or platform.www.ign.com
This happened simply as a contractual obligation, nothing more. Sony would have preferred to keep it exclusive and would have if MLB didn't force the multi-platform release during license negotiations. MS will own all the Zeni IP, so whatever they do, there will not be outside influence as with The Show.
No. They did it to keep 3rd party out of the equation. Nintendo and Msoft could have developed an MLB game anytime they wanted. They were more concerned with keeping ea out of play.
How is this different than what I said?Sony has exclusive rights to the MLB license, this is a fact. MLB was going to move on to EA if Sony didn't agree to make the release mult-plat. Facts. MS and Nintendo could not have made a MLB title since 2010 or 11, somewhere in there. This isn't a choice, same with the NFL.
No but you put it on your competitors platforms to recoup some of your seven billion.You don't spend $7 billion to put your AAA games on the competition's platforms.
Games made by Bethesda can be also a contractual obligation depending on the out come of the deal.This happened simply as a contractual obligation, nothing more. Sony would have preferred to keep it exclusive and would have if MLB didn't force the multi-platform release during license negotiations. MS will own all the Zeni IP, so whatever they do, there will not be outside influence as with The Show.
LOL You said "Nintendo and Msoft could have developed a MLB game anytime they wanted." Which is blatantly false.How is this different than what I said?
Normally, but based on the gold price hike they aborted they could be looking at a different approach to recoup those funds.No but you put it on your competitors platforms to recoup some of your seven billion.
They could have.LOL You said "Nintendo and Msoft could have developed an MLB game anytime they wanted." Which is blatantly false.
I'm sure they'll honor anything with existing contracts. Haven't they already said that?Games made by Bethesda can be also a contractual obligation depending on the out come of the deal.
“continue to see us shift towards a first or better or best approach on our platforms.”
That’s an interesting statement.
Pay attention to 'Microsoft wants bethesda game first better or best on Xbox'
Microsoft Wants Bethesda Games 'First or Better or Best' on Xbox - IGN
Microsoft says that Bethesda games coming to cross-platform will be 'first or better or best' on an Xbox console or platform.www.ign.com
It doesnt ruled out the posibilities for other platform
They could have.
Copium + Hopium
My favorite combo
Because now they take 100% of the revenue from TES/Fallout/Starfield on all platforms?Yes... so why buy the company then?
So, what would you say if Microsoft came out and say Elder Scrolls will be multi-plat because it's in the contract?I'm sure they'll honor anything with existing contracts. Haven't they already said that?
Okay, doing some research, maybe Sony only had exclusive rights due to attrition. If that's the case, I guess MS or Nintendo could have made a game. LOLNot possible. Sony had exclusive rights to the MLB license since 2014.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I first heard of the purchased.Because now they take 100% of the revenue from TES/Fallout/Starfield on all platforms?