-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why do people think MS will allow Elder Scroll and Starfield on PS5?
- Thread starter DavJay
- Start date
Charles Brandon
Member
All the Bethesda games are MS games now. They literally belong to Microsoft, lock, stock and barrel. No difference between Elder Scrolls and Halo.
The Fuzz damn you!
Gold Member
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
Phil Spencer on Bethesda IP exclusivity | Yahoo Finance
Credits to @Hix for finding it. https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/xbox-series-x-most-powerful-170813309.html At 4:33 In terms of where games will show up, our commitment is that our games will show up on Game Pass, PC, console and xCloud. In terms of other platforms we'll take it on a case by case...
Familiarise yourself with this thread.
The key quote from MS, when Spencer is asked if these games will be exclusive, is;
But as the Xbox community, what they should feel this is a huge investment in the experiences they are gonna have in the xbox ecosystem. And we want the xbox ecosystem to be absolutely the best place to play and we think game availability is absolutely part of that.
"game availability" is "exclusivity" and with this comment he's firmly closing the door on any chance of these games coming to PlayStation.
See also, the comments of Bethesda's founder;
Bethesda founder: Microsoft deal is "brilliant counter-move against Sony"
"What Microsoft owns, Sony cannot get," Bethesda founder Christopher Weaver tells Inverse.
"I do not think it is any accident that this announcement occurred so close to Sony's PS5 announcement. There are only a limited number of proven creators of AAA. What Microsoft owns, Sony cannot get."
Last edited by a moderator:
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Everywhere. Meltdowns all over the place.
FrankWza
Member
None huh? No difference?
Can I play any halo games on any PlayStation system?
Can I play fallout or elder scrolls on any PlayStation systems?
The Fuzz damn you!
Gold Member
Where?
Mully87
Neo Member
Well for the sake of a civil debate, we should point out Ori and Cuphead arnt owned by Microsoft therefore its not a like for like comparison.
Minecraft Dungeons is an interesting point as it is technically a new game. To understand that decision i think we really need to look at why Microsoft bought Mojang. Minecraft was already a huge success, on almost every device and printed money. Buying them appears to have been an opportunity to make money on their investment with minimal input and involvement (this is an purely an opinion by the way)
Their recent purchase appears to serve more of a purpose. Established and successful first party studios, hugely popular IP, a massive boost to game pass and a compelling reason to choose an xbox or gamepass available devices over the competition or as a second device due to keeping games exclusive.
The bolded above shows why this is a smart decision as you yourself have stated that in order to play these games you would purchase an Xbox or play on PC.
I agree with you completely that until it is stated as fact by Microsoft themselves there will be a degree of speculation but an educated observation of this deal would point to this being true.
kuncol02
Banned
That's really stupid argument. Could you play Insomniac games outside of PS? Yes. Can people expect that their new games will be available outside of PS? No. Is Horizon available on PC? Yes. Can we expect Horizon 2 outside of PS? Very, very unlikely. There was Super Mario Galaxy on Shield. Does that means that all Mario games should be multi platform since then?
The Fuzz damn you!
Gold Member
Right. Thanks for that.Phil Spencer on Bethesda IP exclusivity | Yahoo Finance
Credits to @Hix for finding it. https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/xbox-series-x-most-powerful-170813309.html At 4:33 In terms of where games will show up, our commitment is that our games will show up on Game Pass, PC, console and xCloud. In terms of other platforms we'll take it on a case by case...www.neogaf.com
Familiarise yourself with this thread.
The key quote from MS, when Spencer is asked if these games will be exclusive, is;
But as the Xbox community, what they should feel this is a huge investment in the experiences they are gonna have in the xbox ecosystem. And we want the xbox ecosystem to be absolutely the best place to play and we think game availability is absolutely part of that.
"game availability" is "exclusivity" and with this comment he's firmly closing the door on any chance of these games coming to PlayStation.
See also, the comments of Bethesda's founder;
Bethesda founder: Microsoft deal is "brilliant counter-move against Sony"
"What Microsoft owns, Sony cannot get," Bethesda founder Christopher Weaver tells Inverse.www.inverse.com
"I do not think it is any accident that this announcement occurred so close to Sony's PS5 announcement. There are only a limited number of proven creators of AAA. What Microsoft owns, Sony cannot get."
Those quotes do not mean what you think they mean. The first talks about availability. Exclusivity is absolutely a part of that, and I have no doubt that we'll see Xbox exclusives coming from Bethesda/Zenimax. Availability also refers to timing of release — I'd expect releases earlier on Xbox, obviously. DLC exclusivity could be a part of it too. However, that is also just as clearly a comment that, in context, deliberately leaves the door open to putting games on PS. If Phil wanted to "make it clear" that these games are unquestionably Xbox exclusives, he would have said exactly that. He didn't. He talked around the issue. He referred to "console" releases, not "Xbox" releases. He mentioned releases on other consoles would be on a "case by case" basis, which goes directly against your argument. If anything, those comment support the argument that these games will release outside of the Xbox/PC ecosystem — and quite strongly too.
The second quote is a) from someone who hasn't worked at Bethesda for nearly 20 years, and b) is, again, taken out of context. He's responding to a question about acquisitions and consolidations and talking about the fact that if MS buy out a company, Sony can't get them. Sony absolutely would make these games exclusive — that's their business model. That's also, btw, why they could never afford to.
But thanks for making your position clear.
The Fuzz damn you!
Gold Member
The buyout of Minecraft wasn't just about the money. It was the ~50 million user accounts that suddenly became Xbox Live accounts that made the $2.5 billion purchase worth it.
The Leaked Truths
Banned
Minecraft was already on all Platforms before Microsoft's acquisition of Mojang.
And Nintendo is not Microsoft's direct competition, it's Sony. That's why as example Ori is on the Nintendo Switch and not on Sony's PlayStation.
FrankWza
Member
It wasn't an argument. It was 2 questions that went unanswered and proved a point. What's stupid is bringing in other fruit when The topic was apples and oranges. Because if you went to bring in PC then I can point out you're having the second or 3rd best experience you can have when gaming on a series X since PC can play all the XBOX games and give you better performance. Which means you should have gotten a PC instead of an XBOX. And insomniac has been part of PS for over a year. I can play games in a month that we're made since that deal. They're also 1 company.The 7.5 billion deal just happened. There are smaller companies under that umbrella with pre-existing deals in place that could FORCE them to release titles on ps5
Edited to say that halo is synonymous with Xbox. The better comparison than any insomniac games would be GoW or uncharted.
Last edited:
Mully87
Neo Member
Like i said, it was only an opinion as i never really looked into further details at the time.
But what i will say is that the purchase was made for different reason to this most recent one, therefor using it as a comparison to help an argument against Microsoft making bethesda games exclusive is a bit irrelevant.
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
You're obfuscating.
Re-read what Spencer said, but use "exclusivity" (of Zenimax IPs), which is what the question was about;
But as the Xbox community, what they should feel this is a huge investment in the experiences they are gonna have in the xbox ecosystem. And we want the xbox ecosystem to be absolutely the best place to play and we think exclusivity is absolutely part of that.
The second quote is about game exclusivity and you'd know that if you actually read the article. The guy who founded Bethesda is actually infinitely more qualified to talk about Bethesda than you, he knows everything about the company as you'd know, again, if you read the article.
Here, have some more people saying it'll be exclusive;
Whoa, Microsoft Bought Bethesda | Maximum Fun
Well hey, if we had known Bethesda was on the market for only $7.5 billion, we would have made a bid!
maximumfun.org
Now it's your turn, please provide evidence including anyone from Beth, MS or an industry insider, to back up your claims.
Charles Brandon
Member
Old iterations, of course.
New stuff - nah.
MS don't own the past but they do control the future of those titles and from this point forward, contractual obligations notwithstanding, Halo and Fallout are stable mates, with the same place in the business.
Hard to believe that MS will be sitting around their boardroom table discussing this and the one factor that compels them to release the games on other platforms is some kind of respect for the history of the franchise. Come on mate.
The Fuzz damn you!
Gold Member
No I'm not
Yes, the question was about exclusivity. Phil's refusal to use that word in his reply is, IMO, very telling. Your narrative here still goes against the framing of the rest of his response. If you don't see "console" and "case by case" as evidence of Phil leaving the gate open while still wanting to give a reason for people to panic-cancel their PS5 pre-orders in favour of Xbox, though, I really don't know what else I can say.
Well that's just rude. Also wrong. The question is about developer acquisitions and consolidation. Again, it's right there in the wording of the question and I really don't know what else I can say.
Seriously man, why the personal attacks? I'm just trying to have a conversation about a business decision. You maybe need a snack or something?
Yeah, like I said, I can see Starfield going exclusive. You do realise, though, that the people you're quoting are saying it's possible that at least some Bethesda/Zenimax games will come to PlayStation, right?
Uhh... I'm not making any claims. I just think it's likely that MS will continue to publish established IPs on multiple platforms in order to recoup their substantial investment while still emphasising the value proposition of Gamepass. I gave my reasoning a few pages back. I'd quote it but I'm on mobile and everything is a right pain in the arse.
FrankWza
Member
Who said anything about respecting the history relative to future releases? The point was that having been multiplat at one time and wanting to recoup some of that 7.5 billion investment, you could see where fallout or elder scrolls would be made available at some point. Halo will NEVER be on a PlayStation console as long as Msoft is still the console business. THAT is the difference
sainraja
Member
I think by default all Bethesda/Zenimax games will be exclusive to Xbox; that much should be clear to everyone discussing this. The only reasons I guess this is even a topic of discussion is due to the odd/weird statements made by Microsoft themselves via Phil Spencer. But I do understand, the acquisition changes a lot of that.
Last edited:
Charles Brandon
Member
You seem to be oscillating between two arguments.
When I said Halo and Bethesda games are the same, you said that current availability of those games differentiates them (AKA 'the history'). Presumably you thought that was a relevant argument or you wouldn't have used it.
When I said history doesn't matter, you have replied with "they want to make money". Which is a different point. If MS are concerned about revenue, they can release all their IP on other consoles. There is no reason to differentiate between games that they have owned for a long time and games they have just acquired. Revenue is revenue. If it makes sense as a strategy for one, it does for all. And of course it doesn't because that's not what these platform holders do. That's why we have exclusive games. They forgo revenue and capitalise the frustrated demand in order to attract more customers onto their platforms.
FrankWza
Member
cool. Make it one argument. Halo and fallout are not the same to Microsoft. ( your point) halo will never be on a PlayStation console. Fallout or elder scrolls or any of those games from the 7.5 billion acquisition may.
You brought up history. And when you couple history with words like respect ,which you did, it takes on a bit of a different meaning. So when that term is applied to 2 very different franchises, there is no choice for me to go between the 2 points. Because halo is a part of Microsoft. It's synonymous with the Xbox. It's not a hired gun. Fallout HAS traditionally been a multiplat. So to speak to your boardroom post:
if the guy sitting at the table says"hey, I think we should think about allowing some or allof these games we just acquired on PlayStation to offset some that 7.5 billion we spent" it's going to be, at a minimum, a discussion. Right? Same guy says" hey, how about we let PlayStation get our next halo game"
End of discussion
edit:I don't mean end of discussion with you. Just to be clear. I meant if it was brought up in that context of the boardroom example
Last edited:
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
Except that discussion would never happen. Microsoft doesn't need to offset the $7.5billion.
Leaving aside the fact they've already made that back since the announcement, they never lost $7.5billion in the first place. They merely moved 7.5 billion from cash to assets on their balance sheet. The money does not need to be recouped.
Again, the only reason they bought Zenimax was to make their IPs exclusive. There is no other argument to be had here.
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
They didn't invest, they purchased. Your understanding of economics is painfully simple.
Microsoft had $7.5 billion in cash, they changed this into $7.5 billion in assets. They are no richer, nor poorer, than before buying Zenimax. There is nothing to "offset" as you claim.
And it blows my mind that you can't imagine how a company with $130 billion in cash in the bank can't make money just by existing.
Just to reiterate, there is no reason other than exclusivity for why Microsoft bought Zenimax. They want you on their ecosystem and they'll strong-arm you in by withholding games they own from PlayStation. That's a fact.
Return on the investment is the reason you dont allow exclusives on Playstation. The MUCH MUCH bigger return is acquiring a customer for the next years and possibly a lifetime. And its not even just console users we're talking about. Its a user base that includes anyone with a cellphone. Theres almost zero reason to allow a non ms platform user, from PS5, stadia, luna, or whatever new competitor comes along, to access your exclusives without being in the ecosystem.
People are saying a return on investment and they are right but they are thinking WAY too small here.
People are saying a return on investment and they are right but they are thinking WAY too small here.
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
some real fucking stupid people in this thread... as if MS will release their no. 1 system seller game on a rivals console.. fuksakes take a wise lads
FrankWza
Member
If they want to make their brand more appealing or force certain customers to buy their gamepass by holding those future games then maybe they can. It won't work on me. I don't play fallout or elder scrolls games so the only thing I missing out on is evil within. I can live without out. But deathloop and ghost wire Tokyo have to come out on ps5 exclusively. So anyone who wants to play those has to buy a ps5 or a pc. Maybe they should have timed their acquisition sooner. Nobody's getting strong armed when you have to wait 2 years to see something from that acquisition. "Pay me or else I'll come and beat you up....in 2 years"
I think I saw that in goodfellas. Or was it Casino? I don't know but the guy was strong armed.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Denial. I see no reason to put the game on PS5.
Maybe in a year after release - after all it will be just a year
Or maybe just say "eventually" without specifying the exact date.
Maybe in a year after release - after all it will be just a year
Or maybe just say "eventually" without specifying the exact date.
Last edited:
TeKtheSanE
Member
Are you referring to cuphead, ori, and Minecraft?
I swear I look at this forum everyday just to laugh, but this one is absurd. Those games are all smaller indie styled games. And yes; although minecraft is a huge game, it is not on the same level as any AAA game in terms of quality and production. And nor did it have the potential to be a system seller due to it already being on the other platforms.
Unless you see a major-hitter from Xbox like Halo, Sea of Thieves, State of Decay, Everwild, and etc etc, over there I would drop this argument until then.
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
What are you going on about? If they make the companies exclusive that is a 7.5 Billion dollar Gamepass investment straight up. If they don't go exclusive then it is more akin to an asset that they intended to get a large return on investment from. IMO, there is no way they would purchase a 7.5 billion asset expecting it to hold value by going exclusive, and holding value is key under the theory they bought 7.5 billion in assets. A huge portion of that 7.5 Billion was for GOOD WILL. The less people who play the games, the less the GOOD WILL is worth over time, which would depress any resale price.
Also, for all the console warrior certainty I see about staying exclusive, why is MS letting people pre-order PS5 without making it crystal clear that these games will never be on PS5. How would that silence possibly advance a goal of using exclusives to increase market share?
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
This is such a bizarre post.
Let's read what Phil Spencer said again;
But as the Xbox community, what they should feel this is a huge investment in the experiences they are gonna have in the xbox ecosystem. And we want the xbox ecosystem to be absolutely the best place to play and we think game availability (exclusivity) is absolutely part of that.
You don't need to understand why a trillion dollar company spends it's money, what it's marketing angle is and what they do with their properties.
These IPs won't be on PlayStation and Microsoft don't give two shits about the lost revenue in sales. I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you, but there it is.
Also you calling anyone a console warrior is the pot calling the kettle black when you're in here port begging for Sony.
Last edited by a moderator:
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
LOL at saying Phil Spencer needs to tweet this for it to be relevant to you.
He said the Zenimax games will be exclusive, but that was only in an interview! Those don't count!
Last edited by a moderator:
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
Who cares?
That's MS marketing, you don't need to understand it.
The only fact that matters for this discussion is Phil Spencer saying these games will be exclusive. Something that has been backed up by many industry insiders as well.
I get that you don't like it, you're a Sony fanboy, it hurts. But there it is, I'm sorry.
The Alien
Banned
...and when it's not, prep for PS fanboys to tizzy.
After that tizzy, then I expect each subsequent tizzy to decrease in fervor as the next Doom, Wolfenstein, Evil Within, Elder Scrolls, etc do not appear on PS5.
That's many a tizzy.
The Alien
Banned
The Fuzz damn you!
Gold Member
MIcrosoft is a orporation. They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. If they are spending $7.5 billion, it's because they expect to get at least $7.6 billion back. Now that doesn't have to be direct -- as in, througth game sales -- it could be by bolstering a platform that will make more money further down the line. One way or another, though, they need to make that money. f they hang onto those $7.5 billion IPs, they depreciate. That $7.5 billion assets reduces in value. They lose that connection to their customers. If they release TES 6 and Fallout 5 and whatever else on Xbox only, there $100 million+ customers who are less likely to buy TES VII and Fallout 6. Therefore, that $7.5 billion dollar asset is no longer a $7.5 billion asset. Maybe they'll hang onto it. Maybe they'll sell if off again further down the line. Maybe they'll carve up the IPs and trade them out piecemeal. One way or another though, yes, they will get that money back, in cash or in capital or in customer allegiance (which, clearly, they don't need a whole lot of help with around here).
You say their only reason they bought Zenimax was to make their IPs exclusive. I say there is another possible reason. This thread is asking why people think MS will release Bethesda/Zenimax games on PS -- I don't think they will. I think they could and, yes, I think it's likely that they do. In the midst of NO direct or implied statements from MS or Bethesda/Zenimax, despite ample opportunity and motivation to do so, you seem to have formed a 100% certainty that exclusivity is going to be absolute and immediate. You might be right -- we'll just have to wait and see -- but your reasoning is absolutely flawed.
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
This is so incredibly divorced from reality that I'm not exactly sure where to begin. It ignores fundamental economic principles such as balance sheet transfers and what it means to be a loss leader, and you seem to, again, insinuate that this is merely a case of your opinion against mine.
So let's start with a very basic fact - Microsoft aren't losing money. Many individual aspects of Microsoft may in fact not be profitable, but the company as a whole is a well oiled machine that is very much in the black.
Game Pass, we know already, isn't making much profit for them at present. In fact, Xbox itself is one of their slowest areas of income since it's inception. Microsoft still somehow managed to overshoot revenue expectations last year bringing in $37 billion net, thanks largely to Azure, LinkedIn and OS sales.
Seeing the point here? Microsoft can haemorrhage money on Xbox, as they have been doing for some time, and still be ridiculously successful - because they have a financial strategy that will, they believe, result in Xbox also being profitable.
They don't need the middling 30% cash from sales of the Elder Scrolls on PlayStation, they don't even need the cash from those sales on Xbox or PC which is why they'll hand it out for free on Game Pass. Why do you think Microsoft cares about unit sales? The whole idea of Game Pass is completely and utterly contrary to it.
So they use $7.5 billion to acquire Zenimax and you somehow think the third richest company in the world needs to have a whip around? Huge amounts of profit is still being made, the acquisition makes shares more valuable and, on top of that, an already agreed strategy is being played through. This is something planned and executed over years as part and parcel of their strategy to convince people to game in their ecosystem.
You have given no other reason why Microsoft purchased Zenimax, despite starting a paragraph with that assertion. Additionally, you have ignored the statements of Microsoft on this issue and the many industry insiders who say these games will be exclusive. I don't even need to look at your post history to know you're a Sony fanboy, but I went ahead and did anyway and, surprise, you've not managed to make a post yet that hasn't somehow undermined Xbox. A real warrior.
Now it makes sense to all here. You aren't just ignoring what Phil Spencer says, or what industry insiders say, because you have some evidence to the contrary that they're wrong. Instead, it's because your loyalty to your favourite plastic box demands it. MS needs to have bought Zenimax to publish it's games on PS5, because heaven forbid others (and maybe even you) might have to consider gaming with them instead.
This is why the rule never applies to Halo, Forza, Gears, or any other IPs that MS purchase such as those with Obsidian. You yourself personally want the Zenimax IPs on PS5, so you yourself ignore every evidence to the contrary and stealth port beg at the point of desperation.
I can see you have nothing more to offer, and indeed there is little more to discuss here - so consider this my final comment on this thread - but allow me to leave you with one more tweet to stew on;
Last edited by a moderator:
The Fuzz damn you!
Gold Member
Yep, no argument here. Like I said -- the profits from the purchase can be indirect, but they do still need to be there. If they didn't expect the purchase to contributing to the overall success and profitability of the company, they wouldn't have made it. The only question here is where that profit will come from -- game sales or elsewhere?
...and again, yep, agreed. This is all about getting players, Xbox/Playstation/whatever, onto Gamepass. Their strategy, though, has been to be non-confrontational as much as possible. They don't want to polarise the fanbases. They want PS players to feel comfortable with coming over to Xbox or to bug Sony into allowing Gamepass on PS without feeling like they're "betraying" their chosen platform. It's been part of their messaging for years now. Congratulating Sony on their announcements. Criticising certain exclusivity practices. Angling for cross-play. Release exclusive Minecraft content on PS to take advantage of PSVR. Allowing the release of smaller exclusives as multi-platforms. MS want to bring gamers to Gamepass, and they know that you don't bring players together by driving them apart.
Ignored? I gave you a direct response and pointed out how and why your interpretations differ from mine. Come on, you can do better than that.
...the fuck are you talking about? This... this is just weird now. But okay -- quote me a post where I have undermined Xbox. You say every single post I've ever made has done that -- quote me just ONE and I will bow out of this thread and admit that you were right about everything and the best person in the entire world, then go out and pre-order a Series X. Hell, I said right here in this thread that Sony is doomed long-term and that I'm considering picking up a Series S. Yes, I've gamed on Playstation for a long time, but I don't consider myself a "fanboy". I just like their games. If you think my posts are the ones that have been divisive and undermining though... geez, really, you seem to be taking all this waaay too personally. Step back. Take a breath. These are just games, buddy.
Seriously... what the fuck are you talking about? I'm the one who ignored what Phil said? I analysed it in detail. You picked up on one comment, ignored the context and changed the wording to fit your conclusion. Yes, of course I want Zenimax IPs on PS5. I want Halo and Forza and Gears on PS5. Why wouldn't I? But... stealth port begging? What even is that?
Look... MS made a purchase. I think it was a smart purchase. I think there are reasons for thinking that these IPs will become Xbox exclusives, but I don't think you're actually mentioning any of them. Here, I'll do it for you:
MS wants to make money out of Gamepass. They are presenting it as a "cheaper" and more value-laden option -- and for some, it definitely will be. Long-term, though, they plan on getting more money out of their customers (as well as more customers), not less. TES and Fallout are perfect vehicles for this long-term strategy. People play these games for year, off and on. They will stay on the platform that lets them play and will not want to cancel their subscription, even if those are the only games they play for a month or two. THAT is an argument for exclusivity, not re-wording a Phil Spencer quote. That's part of the reason why I'm not saying that these games will definitely come to Playstation, I just still think it's likely. MS want to be seen as the good guys in all of this.
MS's press release on the whole thing stated, quite clearly, that this purchase will have "minimal impact to non-GAAP operating income in fiscal years 2021 and 2022." If Starfield is releasing in 2021, it's not going to impact Gamepass subscriptions enough to affect their operating income to any substantial degree, obviously. Releasing it at full price in a market of 20-30 million PS5s, though, would have more of an impact. Whether MS considers this a "substantial degree" is, obviously, unclear, but it's further evidence that Starfield at least will be exclusive. Which, yes, the more I think about it the more I think it will be.
I'm here to answer the question in the thread title. What are you here for?
20 million starfield sales with a 30% cut would have an impact on MS? Not quite.
10 million gamepass subs tho? Yeah big impact. especially when those might turn into multi year customers. You think way too small imo. I could EASILY see a big Bethesda game bringing in 10 mil subs worldwide. Easily.
The Fuzz damn you!
Gold Member
I'm talking about the context of MS's press release, so specifically financial impact for the 2021-2022 financial year.
Here's the release:
Microsoft to acquire ZeniMax Media and its game publisher Bethesda Softworks - Source
Iconic games portfolio, publishing expertise, and world-class talent accelerates growth in Microsoft’s Gaming business REDMOND, Wash. September 21, 2020 – More than three billion people on the planet play games for fun, escape, and human connection. Unlike any other medium, games empower people...
news.microsoft.com
Im quite sure MS gives no fucks on its impact for the 20-21 fiscal years. Way too short term.I'm talking about the context of MS's press release, so specifically financial impact for the 2021-2022 financial year.
Here's the release:
Microsoft to acquire ZeniMax Media and its game publisher Bethesda Softworks - Source
Iconic games portfolio, publishing expertise, and world-class talent accelerates growth in Microsoft’s Gaming business REDMOND, Wash. September 21, 2020 – More than three billion people on the planet play games for fun, escape, and human connection. Unlike any other medium, games empower people...