Support NeoGAF

[SenkiDala]

Just stating the facts mate.

I also remember when Jim said how Sony Doesn't Need to Buy Exclusivity back in 2014 *rollseyes*

​

Because in 2014 they didn't need to ? Times change, the situation today isn't the same than 2014.

I feel it hard to blame Microsoft to use the only talent they have (money) to get exclusives by purchasing publishers, when Sony buy exclusivity for FFXVI, VIIR, Silent Hill 2, and so on.

In my opinion Microsoft is being too agressive though and I understand people being worried to see Microsoft abusing their dominant position. They're known for this.

 

[hinch7]

Yeah, no. Pretty sure nearly everything going forward from Bethesda from now in is going to be only on Xbox and PC. They cancelled the PS5 versions of Starfield and Indiana Jones so..

Same with Activision/Blizzard.. (apart from the CoD), once that deal goes through.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The Activision purchase was caused by Sony's own behavior.

Retarded.

 

[DragonNCM]

They are risking a lot of profit lost

Yeah, no. Pretty sure nearly everything going forward from Bethesda from now in is going to be only on Xbox and PC. They cancelled the PS5 versions of Starfield and Indiana Jones so..

Same with Activision/Blizzard.. (apart from the CoD), once that deal goes through.

I don't think they will louse opportunity to cash in on PS brand.......games like COD, fallout, Doom, Quake will be multiplat & maybe new IP's will be exclusive.

 

[Mr Moose]

It'll be on PC, so yes.

 

[X-Wing]

The Activision purchase was caused by Sony's own behavior.

Somehow, it’s always Sony’s fault.

As others have said, don’t know and don’t care. Doom hasn’t been good since it left MS-DOS.

 

[Riky]

The next Doom already has a player base on PlayStation?

Everyone not making disingenuous arguments knows he was talking about existing GAAS games (TESO, Fallout 76, etc).

Haven't we recently found out Microsoft paid to kill Indiana Jones being multi plat? I think that tells everyone what they need to know.

 

[//DEVIL//]

Wasn't it revealed during the trial thing that Spencer said all upcoming games would be exclusive?

Hell, even Activision games will be exclusive outside of COD as per agreement ( with Sony especially ).

Doom to MS is going be the second Halo, I do not see it coming to PS5.

However, any game that is focus on GaaS, then yeah I expect it on all consoles.

 

[Astral Dog]

Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal are two of the best western games in recent years,but it seems they finished that particular saga and moved to something else we may not see anything DOOM related in awhile

I don't expect it to be multiplatform,but i guess its not impossible

 

[Madserb2023]

Yes, PC, Xbox and possibly the Switch but not Playstation.

 

[Madserb2023]

Retarded.

Even though I think Microsoft is trying to buy Publishers to quickly dominate the industry and would do with or without any input from Sony. There is likelyhood that Sony probably played a part in speeding up this process by trying to buy as much exclusivity as they could. Even MW3 Remaster looks like it will launch on Playstation first which must have been a deal struck a while ago.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Even though I think Microsoft is trying to buy Publishers to quickly dominate the industry and would do with or without any input from Sony. There is likelyhood that Sony probably played a part in speeding up this process by trying to buy as much exclusivity as they could. Even MW3 Remaster looks like it will launch on Playstation first which must have been a deal struck a while ago.

MS has only themselves to blame.

 

[TrueGrime]

Haven't we recently found out Microsoft paid to kill Indiana Jones being multi plat? I think that tells everyone what they need to know.

Microsoft has owned Zen for over two years now, and typically when you own an IP or simply pay for exclusivity, you kind of own that right, no?

 

[Riky]

Microsoft has owned Zen for over two years now, and typically when you own an IP or simply pay for exclusivity, you kind of own that right, no?

With Indiana Jones there is a third party involved so people presumed it would still have to be multi platform. Turns out Microsoft has had the contract altered so it's an Xbox console exclusive.
That shows their intent.

 

[Forsythia]

Why the hell should it be multiplat, it's a firstparty IP.

 

[DeepEnigma]

With Indiana Jones there is a third party involved so people presumed it would still have to be multi platform. Turns out Microsoft has had the contract altered so it's an Xbox console exclusive.
That shows their intent.

When everybody plays, we all win™

 

[StueyDuck]

That isn't Phil's MO...

Consolidate and exclusify, strangle the competition

 

[TrueGrime]

MS has only themselves to blame.

Agree to an extend here, DE. Agree for the fact that the goodwill that MS cultivated with the 360 was killed outright by the Xbox One (Price, Kinect, NoDRM). Losing that momentum heading into the PS4/Xbox One era was devastating, but Sony was still on the up and up in terms of the PS3. Sony still had quite a few first party studios under them during that generation and even though the 360 was a strong competitor for the PS3, Sony still dominated on the exclusives, 3rd party timed-exclusives, and even having a lock on import-exclusives.

Going into the PS4 era, Sony ramped this up tenfold. It's much easier for the market leader to attain timed-exclusives due to there being less risk for the developers. Sony did it right and practically starved the Xbox One out of day of games. Taking a look at popular games like CoD, not only did Sony have marketing rights they used their position to get in-game exclusives in terms of content in games that didn't just end at CoD. Exclusives perks, modes, and characters in 3rd party games.

Now, if you're Microsoft, what do you do to stop the bleeding? Well, you're a 2 trillion dollar company for one. Your money alone isn't enough to secure 3rd party timed exclusives and you're not looking for a "quick fix" like that, so you start taking studios off the board. Onsies and twosies if you can do it, but if you can score publishers that are willing to sell and you're willing to pay then you use your strengths. In the PS1 days, Sony bought their first publisher and turned them into an exclusive/multiplat machine and it vaulted them into the front even before Microsoft game along with the Xbox.

 

[Slicker than your average]

The next Doom already has a player base on PlayStation?

Everyone not making disingenuous arguments knows he was talking about existing GAAS games (TESO, Fallout 76, etc).

Everyone that knows Phil's bullshit knows he can't ever give a clear answer. He could have simply said, every game going forward will be exclusive. Or we back to the case by case basis .

His never ending double speak is never clear. He's either full of shit and lying or being disingenuous. I would have zero issue If the guy would just stop with the bullshit and faux platitudes all the time.

It's okay though his fan base will defend his bullshit and shout at people who aren't willing to read between the lines (lies).

 

[Fbh]

lol 3 years after MS announced they were getting Zenimax people are still struggling to accept it

 

[DeepEnigma]

Agree to an extend here, DE. Agree for the fact that the goodwill that MS cultivated with the 360 was killed outright by the Xbox One (Price, Kinect, NoDRM). Losing that momentum heading into the PS4/Xbox One era was devastating, but Sony was still on the up and up in terms of the PS3. Sony still had quite a few first party studios under them during that generation and even though the 360 was a strong competitor for the PS3, Sony still dominated on the exclusives, 3rd party timed-exclusives, and even having a lock on import-exclusives.

Going into the PS4 era, Sony ramped this up tenfold. It's much easier for the market leader to attain timed-exclusives due to there being less risk for the developers. Sony did it right and practically starved the Xbox One out of day of games. Taking a look at popular games like CoD, not only did Sony have marketing rights they used their position to get in-game exclusives in terms of content in games that didn't just end at CoD. Exclusives perks, modes, and characters in 3rd party games.

Now, if you're Microsoft, what do you do to stop the bleeding? Well, you're a 2 trillion dollar company for one. Your money alone isn't enough to secure 3rd party timed exclusives and you're not looking for a "quick fix" like that, so you start taking studios off the board. Onsies and twosies if you can do it, but if you can score publishers that are willing to sell and you're willing to pay then you use your strengths. In the PS1 days, Sony bought their first publisher and turned them into an exclusive/multiplat machine and it vaulted them into the front even before Microsoft game along with the Xbox.

It would not have been so easy for Sony if MS did not do this to themselves. If they stayed competitive, it would have been equal across the board like the PS360 era, all things considered.

Third parties are always going to look for and shop around these deals. Even Zenimax (Pete Hines) said they weren't approached for third party deals, it was THEM doing the shopping around in the FTC court case.

 

[bender]

The Activision purchase was caused by Sony's own behavior.

 

[Ozriel]

New Quake seems likely to me. But I’m pretty sure I also read that iD have been working closely with Bethesda on StarField, helping out with the FPS mechanics. I think they did the same with Arkane and RedFall.

So a lot of support work I guess.

Support work would only engage a handful of iD employees, not the full studio.

Bethesda says they helped with animation, not gunplay.

 

[Ozriel]

Removing games from your competitor would make most sense long term, but I wouldn't be surprised if some might still appear (just to keep regulators happy), some even via some timed exclusivity.

Regulators don’t care about Bethesda games, and new games can’t be ‘removed’ from platforms they don’t exist on.

‘Case-by-case’ is probably the only answer for this thread. Probably depends on what state Xbox is hardware, subscription and software wise

 

[TrueGrime]

With Indiana Jones there is a third party involved so people presumed it would still have to be multi platform. Turns out Microsoft has had the contract altered so it's an Xbox console exclusive.
That shows their intent.

The intent to keep an IP they own that's in pre-production exclusive is a new concept?

Microsoft acquired Zenimax and Deathloop and Ghostwire were still a year timed-exclusives for PS. God knows how long Starfield would've been locked up. At some point you just have to let the fact that games not released yet are going to go exclusive.

Multiplayer / GaaS seem like they will still remain multiplat.

 

[TrueGrime]

It would not have been so easy for Sony if MS did not do this to themselves. If they stayed competitive, it would have been equal across the board like the PS360 era, all things considered.

Third parties are always going to look for and shop around these deals. Even Zenimax (Pete Hines) said they weren't approached for third party deals, it was THEM doing the shopping around in the FTC court case.

Let's say the Xbox One was as successful as the PS4, do you think Sony would've stopped their due diligence on exclusives of all types? Again, Sony is still ahead on first party studios. If you're Microsoft and you have all this cash, do you go after as many studios willing to sell or do you go for timed-exclusives that you may or may not get?

 

[Riky]

The intent to keep an IP they own that's in pre-production exclusive is a new concept?

Microsoft acquired Zenimax and Deathloop and Ghostwire were still a year timed-exclusives for PS. God knows how long Starfield would've been locked up. At some point you just have to let the fact that games not released yet are going to go exclusive.

Multiplayer / GaaS seem like they will still remain multiplat.

I agree entirely, that's what I'm saying if MS were willing to pay to lock down Indiana Jones then why do people think the next Doom wouldn't also be Xbox console exclusive.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Let's say the Xbox One was as successful as the PS4, do you think Sony would've stopped their due diligence on exclusives of all types? Again, Sony is still ahead on first party studios. If you're Microsoft and you have all this cash, do you go after as many studios willing to sell or do you go for timed-exclusives that you may or may not get?

Third parties always shop for exclusive timeframe or marketing, themselves. If all these were equal, Sony would not have has the install base/mindshare sweetheart deals in comparison, MS would have had just as many, if not more like they did in the 360 era.

 

[hinch7]

They are risking a lot of profit lost

I don't think they will louse opportunity to cash in on PS brand.......games like COD, fallout, Doom, Quake will be multiplat & maybe new IP's will be exclusive.

Thats why I said excluding CoD. That's a cash cow for both companies and Sony signed the deal for 10 years. After that I'm sure MS will allow CoD to be on PS thereafter.

The others yeah.. good luck with that. MS has shown they're going to keep the rest like Bethesda, to bolster their own services not put it on others. If they wanted ABK to be multiplat they would've said so and wouldn't be fighting this hard for the aquisition. And definately not for $69 billion.

 

[Solidus_T]

Phil demanded that every Zenimax game be pulled from Playstation from 2021 and on.

 

[octiny]

On PS? Not a chance.

PC & the Switch successor? Definitely.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

I expect it to be exclusive.

Also Q2 being multiplat probably have more to do with Limited Run Games physical release.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I think it honestly depends on if MS is able to move significant xbox units and/or increase regular Gamepass subscribers. If Starfield isn't able to move the needle or at least give a glimmer of hope then it makes ZERO sense to keep it exclusive.

Unless Gamepass massively increases it's number of subscribers, which I maintain is unlikely considering that all major streamers are LOSING subscribers, I don't see anyway that it makes financial sense for Doom to be Xbox exclusive.

 

[Forsythia]

Also Q2 being multiplat probably have more to do with Limited Run Games physical release.

I remember reading something along the lines that a remaster of Quake won't move Xbox consoles, so there is no need to make it exclusive.

Now, a full reboot of Quake and a sequel to DOOM Eternal are quite different. Expect those to be exclusive to Xbox/PC.

 

[Knightime_X]

It will be on PC, not exclusive.

But it will certainly be console exclusive.
Unless Nintendo is in bed with MS.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Because in 2014 they didn't need to ? Times change,

Times change?

SONY now need to buy more studios to compete with Xbox, how times change

 

[GigaBowser]

I hopes on all consoles Doom is sooooooooooo much betters then Halo now sad Master Chiefs wars my role model

 

[Ishma3L]

The next Doom? Didn't know there was one.

 

[Vox Machina]

Xbox, Windows, and Steam OS probably

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Phil doesn't care about giving gamers more choice, so I'd say there's almost 0% chance it's multiplat. He had the opportunity to continue extending gamers more choice and decided against it when he made every single title from Bethesda exclusive (unless under a previous contract).

 

[Pimpbaa]

I’m still trying to read the OP.

 

[GigaBowser]

I’m still trying to read the OP.

 

[FoxMcChief]

Nope. DOOM going forward will be exclusive. Just accept it earlier.

 

[Zombie_Master_chief]

It shall be exclusive to allow them to focus on a better experience in my opinion

 

[TehGoomba7s]

It’s easy revenue for MS to have these games multiplat and take the 30% cut or whatever it is.

 

[Mythoclast]

It'll be exclusive. No one should still be buying into Phil's fake good guy act.

Bro I hate this “Phil Spencer is a bad guy if he makes X game exclusive” rhetoric. Ryan and Sony have been doing that for decades. Is Ryan a bad guy because Xbox users cannot play Spiderman, TLOU, GOW, FF16 or Remake on Xbox? No, it’s just business. If anything, Sony is much guiltier than MSFT for walling exclusives.

I have all consoles so I don’t really care buy jeez some fanboys are insane. Exclusives are NOT bad and are in fact necessary for the differentiation and competitiveness of the industry as a whole.

If people can’t afford to buy X console to play all games, it was your choice bro. When you choose to buy an iPhone and not an Android or viceversa you also choose to keep certain perks and forfeit others. You just learn to suck it up.

 

[Robb]

Bro I hate this “Phil Spencer is a bad guy if he makes X game exclusive” rhetoric. Ryan and Sony have been doing that for decades

MS only has themselves to blame for that. They’re the ones spouting stuff like “when everyone plays we all win”, “we don’t want to take anything away from another playerbase” etc. etc.

They’ve build this image themselves by saying one thing and doing another.

 

[Mythoclast]

MS only has themselves to blame for that. They’re the ones spouting stuff like “when everyone plays we all win”, “we don’t want to take anything away from another playerbase” etc. etc.

They’ve build this image themselves by saying one thing and doing another.

Bro it’s all corporate BS and we all know what. Just like when Ryan said “we believe in generations” to take a stab at MSFT for not having Series X exclusives, while they keep releasing shit for the PS4. As MSFTs CEO, he’s only entitled to do what’s best for his business, which includes Xbox players. If releasing a game on other platforms is better for the overall business, they will do it. As Jim Ryan would.

They don’t give two shits about how users of another platform “feel” lol. I wouldn’t.

 

[Robb]

Bro it’s all corporate BS and we all know what. Just like when Ryan said “we believe in generations” to take a stab at MSFT for not having Series X exclusives, while they keep releasing shit for the PS4. As MSFTs CEO, he’s only entitled to do what’s best for his business, which includes Xbox players. If releasing a game on other platforms is better for the overall business, they will do it. As Jim Ryan would.

They don’t give two shits about how users of another platform “feel” lol. I wouldn’t.

Of course it is, I’m not arguing agains that. But it’s not like Sony and Nintendo is out there saying that everyone should be able to play their titles everywhere and that they don’t want to exclude anyone. If anything they’re more likely to just say “if you want to play our games, buy our platform”.

Had MS just done the same this wouldn’t be an issue.

 

[cireza]

MS only has themselves to blame for that. They’re the ones spouting stuff like “when everyone plays we all win”, “we don’t want to take anything away from another playerbase” etc. etc.

They’ve build this image themselves by saying one thing and doing another.

Sony have been doing the exact same thing ever since they entered the market. This is business as usual with the same dumb arguments being proposed every single time something becomes exclusive.

When a game becomes exclusive, it won't release on other consoles. That's just how it is. Companies do this to push their ecosystem forward. People know this very well, but they simply can't accept it because now MS have started to aggressively do this, and thus people have absurd and unreasonable requests such as "because this is MS they definitely should not push their ecosystem but release on other platforms". Which is beyond stupid.

And Spencer does make the game more accessible when it is in Game Pass, as people can play it for a much lower fee, Series S being also the most affordable console out there. Also available through Xcloud. And PC...