poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Sony got in trouble with Homeland fricking Security for some of the stuff they pulled.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Starfield Was Planned For PS5 Prior To Microsoft's ZeniMax Acquisition, FTC Says
- Thread starter Solidsnake_1
- Start date
- News
Barakov
Member
lh032
I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
I remember some xboxfan on facebook mentioned this, and i said "then why its not on Playstation"" When everyone plays, we all win..... "
he said "well thats different, PS user base is smaller".
Last edited:
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Sony moneyhatted those 2 Bethesda Games prior to the launch of the new generation, locking out Xbox & PC gamers. Games that are now 1st party for Xbox and allegedly tried to do the same with Starfield.
It's likely the only reason Xbox & PC gamers will be playing Starfield this September is because Xbox bought Bethesda. Now Sony gamers are feeling surprised and persecuted that that Xbox has made their big first party game exclusive to their own players. Why wouldn't they?
Like many games that were made by 3rd party multiplat developers that became permanently exclusive to Sony, as first party, I'm sure Xbox helped BGS financially and technically in developing Starfield, also Deathloop and Ghostwire. I can also imagine that Ghostwire & Deathloop were originally planned to be on Xbox and PC day one.
Finally, I've never seen where Starfield was announced for PlayStation 5 can someone please post a link to it.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
I never had any doubt that Starfield would be anything but exclusive but thought there was a chance Indiana Jones might be multiplat since it's a licensed IP, kind of like MLB so I'm kind of surprised it's exclusive.
reinking
Gold Member
TLDR version. It's all Sony's fault MS now has to spend 69 billion dollars to save gaming.
Varteras
Gold Member
It was confirmed in the hearing today that Starfield was being developed for PS5. Also, that Zenimax pursued exclusivity agreements. Not that they were approached. If you feel brave, head on over to the ABK deal thread and sift through the ocean of posts.
Microsoft could have offered them a lot of money for exclusivity. Instead, chose to buy them.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Thanks, but I'm not feeling that brave, so I'm going to take your word for it.It was confirmed in the hearing today that Starfield was being developed for PS5. Also, that Zenimax pursued exclusivity agreements. Not that they were approached. If you feel brave, head on over to the ABK deal thread and sift through the ocean of posts.
Microsoft could have offered them a lot of money for exclusivity. Instead, chose to buy them.
So it was never publicly announced I take it.
Last edited:
Varteras
Gold Member
Thanks, but I'm not feeling that brave, so I'm going to take your word for it.
So it was never publicly announced I take it.
It's public knowledge now. Was it an announcement? No. But considering it was a multiplatform publisher whose games had been on PlayStation for years, everyone made the assumption, rightfully so, that it would be. There was honestly no reason to believe otherwise unless stated as such. To claim otherwise would really just be acting ignorant to how the industry has treated announcements from major companies. When the next Battlefield is announced, it doesn't matter if they don't say the platforms that instant. Everyone will assume as such. Because that's what recent history has shown us to be true a vast majority of the time with these big companies.
As a side note, Pete Hines gave the impression in today's hearing that there was discord within Xbox over exclusivity. That Zenimax was forced to drop PS5 development on multiple titles while hearing that ABK games would remain multiplat. He was not happy with that.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
i think the hits are hitting Jim Ryan:The hits keep coming.
It's almost like most of what MS said was
Lupin25
Member
I mean, let’s think.
Todd Howard stated out of his own mouth this game took 7-8 yrs to development (well before they were acquired) so…
No SHIT it was coming PS consoles until MS took over Bethesda. Knowing Sony, if the PS4 had the capable hardware it probably would’ve came there too lol.
Todd Howard stated out of his own mouth this game took 7-8 yrs to development (well before they were acquired) so…
No SHIT it was coming PS consoles until MS took over Bethesda. Knowing Sony, if the PS4 had the capable hardware it probably would’ve came there too lol.
Edgelord79
Gold Member
At least tell me what the video says is “Absolutely Crazy”. I’m not spending 12 minutes to watch what is most likely tantamount to yet another nothingburger.i think the hits are hitting Jim Ryan:
.at this rate Play Station is going to be the one paying 70B just to not be destroyed by Shara Bond and MS's lawyers.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Edit: I'm a dipshit. Apparently I didn't hit reply. This is in response to
Varteras
post:
I could see it being exclusive to Xbox and PC. Xbox and PC are BGS's main platforms, plus Morrowind was exclusive to OG Xbox, Oblivion was timed exclusive to the 360. The 360 was the lead platform for Skyrim and Fallout 4 came with a free copy of FO3 and got mods. Plus Todd has been gleeful about only having to build Starfield for Xbox and PC.
Pete Hines on the other had is NOT gleeful at all and was pretty vocal about it after the deal closed and it was announced Starfield would be exclusive.
Varteras
post:I could see it being exclusive to Xbox and PC. Xbox and PC are BGS's main platforms, plus Morrowind was exclusive to OG Xbox, Oblivion was timed exclusive to the 360. The 360 was the lead platform for Skyrim and Fallout 4 came with a free copy of FO3 and got mods. Plus Todd has been gleeful about only having to build Starfield for Xbox and PC.
Pete Hines on the other had is NOT gleeful at all and was pretty vocal about it after the deal closed and it was announced Starfield would be exclusive.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
I saw that word (nothingburger) been used a lot on era regarding the Botty's email about putting PlayStation out of business.
is crazy to see two realities emerge from the same event.
note: What makes you believe i saw the video?
. those kind of videos are so cringe-inducing.
Hawking Radiation
Member
Didn't Phil and the devs say that Starfield wasn't planned for Playstation?
Phil says alot of things.
Hawking Radiation
Member
Didn’t Sony tried to buy starfield as a timed exclusive first? You can’t tell me they wouldn’t make it an exclusive given the chance
Timed exclusives have been going on for years now from both Xbox and PS.
Tomb Raider having time exclusivity on Xbox for a year?
The main difference is that other platforms will be able to play those games at some point. Remember
Last edited:
Rykan
Member
There is no world in which Starfield, One of Bethesdas biggest and most expensive games to date, was going to skip the biggest console install base “Just because”.
No such thing as a “main platform” anymore.
What? That game came out 21 years ago.
That's because it came out before the Playstation 3 was even released. It came out on PS3 just a few months after its launch.
The Xbox 360 was basically a "dumb" PC. It made sense to develop for that architecture specifically back then because it would tackle both Xbox 360 and PC. The PS3 used a completely different architecture. Fallout 3 was included with Fallout 4 on Xbox because Xbox One had Backwards Compatibility where as PS4 did not. All of these arguments are technical details about old, obsolete consoles that have absolutely no bearing on the business decision to keep Starfield exclusive or multiplatform.
Its called PR.
Last edited:
I don't get why people are bringing Sony into this case when they are not even a party here. It's MS vs FTC in court.
This is about MS pulling the plug on an alleged PS5 version of the game.
People bringing Spider-Man into the conversation not knowing Disney/Marvel approached them about it and they turned them down.
kotaku.com
This "Sony too" approach just shows the lack of good defense these warriors have in defending MS right now. They have to resort to whatever Sony did previously, albeit to a lesser extent, in order to say it was done before by the competition.
Well guess what, the competition never has never cancelled in development versions of games.
This is about MS pulling the plug on an alleged PS5 version of the game.
People bringing Spider-Man into the conversation not knowing Disney/Marvel approached them about it and they turned them down.
Spider-Man Could Have Been An Xbox Exclusive
Marvel exec explains how Sony’s top-selling game ended up on the PlayStation
kotaku.com
This "Sony too" approach just shows the lack of good defense these warriors have in defending MS right now. They have to resort to whatever Sony did previously, albeit to a lesser extent, in order to say it was done before by the competition.
Well guess what, the competition never has never cancelled in development versions of games.
Locking out Xbox and PC gamers? Can you not play those games right now?
We need proof of your certainty that Xbox helped BGS financially and technically in developing Starfield, also Deathloop and Ghostwire. Because that would mean involvement with Bethesda prior to the acquisition which would coincide with a specific email being discussed here recently.
As to the announcement that Starfield was coming to PS5, well it never said it was exclusive prior to the acquisition. So we get what you're implying now. Bethesda developed those games for a long time only with Xbox and PC in mind. Suuuure.
cash_longfellow
Member
I have read the European commission report and nowhere it is said that Microsoft pledged to keep publishing Zenimax games on multiple platforms.
FTC saying that Microsoft lied to the EUC is complete bullshit.
EUC report says that Microsoft would probably not make Zenimax games exclusive to Microsoft platforms because the loss of revenues would be too huge.
But if Microsoft still decide to, it wouldn't matter at all because Zenimax games aren't relevant enough to give an unfair advantage to Microsoft on the Market.
EUC never asked Microsoft for guarantees on anything.
EUC questioned other video game publishers and third parties about the acquisition:
(76) Overall, video game publishers that responded to the market investigation have not
raised concerns regarding Microsoft ceasing to acquire content from them or
otherwise degrading the terms on which it does so. Third parties did not consider
that ZeniMax video games were significant enough for a (partial) customer
foreclosure strategy to be profitable.
(126) This conclusion is consistent with the results of the market investigation. The
majority of distributors considered that the Transaction, in general, would have a
neutral impact on their company, and no respondent believed that the impact would
be negative. The majority of distributors also indicated, more specifically, that the
impact of a possible exclusivity strategy with regard to ZeniMax games would be
neutral on the distribution market.
FTC saying that Microsoft lied to the EUC is complete bullshit.
EUC report says that Microsoft would probably not make Zenimax games exclusive to Microsoft platforms because the loss of revenues would be too huge.
But if Microsoft still decide to, it wouldn't matter at all because Zenimax games aren't relevant enough to give an unfair advantage to Microsoft on the Market.
EUC never asked Microsoft for guarantees on anything.
EUC questioned other video game publishers and third parties about the acquisition:
(76) Overall, video game publishers that responded to the market investigation have not
raised concerns regarding Microsoft ceasing to acquire content from them or
otherwise degrading the terms on which it does so. Third parties did not consider
that ZeniMax video games were significant enough for a (partial) customer
foreclosure strategy to be profitable.
(126) This conclusion is consistent with the results of the market investigation. The
majority of distributors considered that the Transaction, in general, would have a
neutral impact on their company, and no respondent believed that the impact would
be negative. The majority of distributors also indicated, more specifically, that the
impact of a possible exclusivity strategy with regard to ZeniMax games would be
neutral on the distribution market.
The hits keep coming.
It's almost like most of what MS said was
Microsoft told you before that Indiana Jones was coming to PlayStation?
Clarify.
Oh, everyone here knows. It’s been discussed multiple times across several threads. They all know Microsoft made zero promise to release every Bethesda game on other consoles, and that the promise they did make - not to pull existing games - they’ve kept.
You mean aside from paying Square to keep AAA Final Fantasy games off Xbox, seemingly for good?
Or how Stellar Blade magically moved from a multiplatform release (as claimed by the devs) to a PS exclusive?
Last edited:
James Sawyer Ford
Member
They promised not to fracture existing communities. Starfield is the natural successor to Fallout/Skyrim within their community.
So they absolutely were intentionally vague and certainly deceived their audience and communities with that broken promise
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
That's like saying bloodborne was the natural progression of demons souls and dark souls and Sony paid and Co developed it so it couldn't come out on xbox.....
And street fighter 5...and final fantasy vii remake...and final fantasy xvi..
And star wars kotor....
And....
What are we doing here, what's the point?
Last edited:
It’s a massive stretch to claim Starfield, a single player game, is part of an existing community. Or to even push the ‘natural successor’ bit.
Especially when you’ve said multiple times that Starfield is a new, unknown and unproven IP.
‘Stretch’ is putting it mildly.
Meanwhile you know they’ve faithfully kept PS in full parity with all ESO updates and DLC, all Fallout 76 content and patches (including a next gen patch days ago).
Iced Arcade
Member
Nothing we didn't already know and I don't see anything particularly wrong with it BUT Phil's bullshit Kumbaya "we all win when we all play" fake persona is what makes it sleezy.
Phil just needs to stfu
Phil just needs to stfu
James Sawyer Ford
Member
No it’s not a stretch at all
It’s the next big Bethesda IP with all the same types of gameplay systems and approaches they’re known for
supernova8
Banned
I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't just say:
"Yes we will be making all of Activision's games exclusive to Xbox/PC and we still wouldn't be able to reverse Playstation's dominant position"
I mean that's the truth, right? It's not like if the deal goes through Jim Ryan is going to suddenly give up and jump off a building or something.
Hard to tell if people are against the merger itself or just annoyed at Microsoft clearly lying when it says Activision IP would still come to other platforms (namely Playstation).
Also, for what it's worth, Sony is absolutely overstating the importance of Call of Duty to Playstation's market position. What would happen is that Sony would either make its own competing franchise or find a way to make Battlefield exclusive and then heavily influence its development so that EA/DICE doesn't come out with another piece of shit dud. Basically, the end result would be that Playstation users get something as good as or better than Call of Duty in the end anyway.
I guess my ambivalence is because I don't give a shit about COD anymore.
"Yes we will be making all of Activision's games exclusive to Xbox/PC and we still wouldn't be able to reverse Playstation's dominant position"
I mean that's the truth, right? It's not like if the deal goes through Jim Ryan is going to suddenly give up and jump off a building or something.
Hard to tell if people are against the merger itself or just annoyed at Microsoft clearly lying when it says Activision IP would still come to other platforms (namely Playstation).
Also, for what it's worth, Sony is absolutely overstating the importance of Call of Duty to Playstation's market position. What would happen is that Sony would either make its own competing franchise or find a way to make Battlefield exclusive and then heavily influence its development so that EA/DICE doesn't come out with another piece of shit dud. Basically, the end result would be that Playstation users get something as good as or better than Call of Duty in the end anyway.
I guess my ambivalence is because I don't give a shit about COD anymore.
Last edited:
I think the more preferable outcome would be for forum members to stop pretending that phrase meant you could expect Xbox to become fully third party.
Is it also sleazy you aren’t seeing a port of Forza Horizon 5 on Nintendo and PlayStation consoles?
Communities form around franchises or existing games. Not new, unreleased IP.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
Nope
Same DNA is in their games even if the ip is different
Fans of their games will look forward to the next big thing regardless of what it is, the fans know it
Microsoft has already signed a legally binding agreement with the EU to keep Call of Duty on all existing platforms for at least 10 years, so they can’t say that.
It’s the former.
Just as Jim Ryan admitted privately, most people know there’s no real wriggle room and COD isn’t skipping PlayStation.
Iced Arcade
Member
Let's read my whole post now....
"Nothing we didn't already know and I don't see anything particularly wrong with it BUT Phil's bullshit Kumbaya "we all win when we all play" fake persona is what makes it sleezy.
Phil just needs to stfu"
Yes. You’ve failed to clarify how this invalidates his “we all win when we all play” which he pushes as an accessibility and D&I slogan. Not a hard promise that you can expect all Xbox games on your other consoles.
Oh I don't mean anything. You're the one making those claims so the burden of proof lies with you to show that those "in development games were canceled", like I originally posted.
Don't go saying FF mainline was paid to be kept off Xbox, because it was clear in the ads (FF7R) that the exclusivity was only for a certain period. You can find it in their ads.
As to Stellar Blade/Project Eve, the original reveal had X1, PS4. Both were canned. How do you know that Sony paid them to cancel all versions and focus on PS5? If anything, it could be that it was the developer who canceled ALL last-gen versions and focused solely on one console. Not saying that's what happened but that is different from
So, no. The examples you stated are both dissimilar to canceling games already in development to keep them out of one platform.
Try again.
intheinbetween
Member
Wait, so FF VII Remake is coming to XBOX? I missed the news if so.
When it comes to Stellar Blade, it’s funny how calm one can be explaining an asumption based on no other evidence than the game was originally a multiplatform title and all of sudden it was announced at a Sony event as a PS exclusive, but hey probably it was because the devs preferred to release it on a single platform since architecture between platforms is so different nowdays that it would take a lot of resources, I guess the Lies of Pi devs must be unique. Same can be said by any other PS exclusive according to some folks, either it was a logic decision due to the market share, other platforms didn’t care and rejected, or just because they’ve been partners for a long time, so it’s perfectly fine and accepted to have exclusives on PS but hell freezes if MS get them too, specially when they also get release day one on PC unlike Sony’s
Last edited:
No one freezes hell over MS getting exclusives. Hell, they have exclusives, such as Forza, Gears, Halo, just to name a few. This thread is about the canceled PS5 version of Starfield, a game presumably well in development for PS5 before the acquisition.
If you can show proof that FF7R was in development for Xbox and subsequently canceled, then you have a point. If all you have is "FF VII Remake is coming to Xbox?" then take it up with MS since the exclusivity period ended already.
Also, I am not assuming anything when it comes to Stellar Blade, I provided options as to possible explanations if you read my post.
It’s been three years since FF7R Part 1 was released. I’m pretty sure everyone and their dog already knows it’s not coming to Xbox, and they know exactly why
And now the developer has canceled all other versions of Starfield and chosen to focus solely on one console. Same thing, right?
But that’s pretty much how you tried to explain away the Stellar Blade situation, isn’t it?
And now they own the IP and the developer and are perfectly free to set whatever release platform they want. Especially when they made no promises to consumers or regulators to keep the IP multi-platform.
Skifi28
Member
Much like Persona or Yakuza was never coming to Xbox. It's very likely the exclusivity period has already ended and it's now up to Microsoft to give Square incentive to port the game.It’s been three years since FF7R Part 1 was released. I’m pretty sure everyone and their dog already knows it’s not coming to Xbox, and they know exactly why
I imagine crying how they're in last place with only 16% market share and how they lost the console war is not helping.
Last edited: