• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Opinion Business Platform Xbox CFO Talks Bethesda Exclusivity; “We Want Bethesda Content to be First or Better or Best on Xbox Platforms”

sn0man

Member
Nov 23, 2013
1,150
691
600
“When we think about Bethesda, it's going to be the continuing to allow -- I'll say allow, but continue to sell their games on the platforms that they exist today, and we'll determine what that looks over time and will change over time”, the CFO said. “I'm not making any announcements about exclusivity or something like that. But that model will change.”
Translation: if XSS/X sell well we will go exclusive. If not we might stay multiplatforn.
 

Clear

Deer/Dur
Feb 2, 2009
11,767
6,185
1,245
Obsidian has plenty experience with Playstation. Why is Avowed not on PS5?

Ninja Theory has plenty experience with Playstation. Why is Hellblade 2 not on PS5? This game literally was a PS4 exclusive at some point.

Most of the devs MS has have experience working with ps devkits.

I swear I have never heard about this much money being left on tables before MS bought Zenimax. I'd love to know where those tables are.

The difference is none of those devs own any IP worth a damn in the grand scheme of things, and all got bought out because they were struggling.

Not every transaction is the same. Zenimax were up for sale because their owners were looking to divest themselves, hence the extremely high purchase price. On the other hand the first set of acquistions were either already deeply entrenched with MS (like Playground) or were basically struggling with the prospect of an uncertain future.
 
Last edited:

Bernkastel

Member
Mar 8, 2018
6,800
13,837
920
I don't mean to offend Linux fans, but I think the answer is pretty straightforward. Linux represents under 3% of the install base on desktops & laptops from the metrics I've seen. Like many gaming companies they may just be making the assessment that it's not worth the effort or return to port it.

But I don't disagree with your overall assertion that they would not want to eliminate a reason to get an xbox. I think they have said this with their comments about making xbox/PC the "best place" to play these games, and I think that will manifest as platform specific features or exclusives - maybe a DLC that releases for xbox but not PS5 for example (Spidey DLC, Sony?). So I think they will entice people to buy and play on their controlled platforms, but I don't think they would close the door to all that revenue. It just doesn't make good business sense from a pure revenue perspective; I'm not surprised at all to see the comments from their CFO.
They still release Office on OS X. Like I said if they just wanted a timed exclusive DLC contract they can make a deal for that. Zenimax is no Take Two/Activision/Minecraft, they don't print money enough to justify being treated as money printing machine, unless they can drive to people into their platform.
 
Feb 15, 2013
8,873
7,539
775
London
I'm still certain these games gonna be exclusives, otherwise Microsoft had no reason to buy them. I smell Denial.

The denial is from one side:

“When we think about Bethesda, it's going to be the continuing to allow -- I'll say allow, but continue to sell their games on the platforms that they exist today, and we'll determine what that looks over time and will change over time”, the CFO said

So the big franchises coming out soonish, relatively speaking (Starfield, TES) will be on PS5/PS4 but after that, they will evaluate and may go full Xbox exclusive.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Wizz-Art

ZehDon

Member
Jun 13, 2013
3,299
4,360
700
Australia
I think they've panic bought first and are going to work out the details later.
Not ideal for anybody.
The number of future CEOs and rockstar Investors on NeoGAFs grows every time this deal gets mentioned.

Panic buying a $7.5b publishing house.
Buying a publisher for better optimised ports.
Dropping $7.5b for timed exclusivity and early DLC.

Such amazing business understanding on display, I wonder why Microsoft doesn’t just run their business based on NeoGAF polls.

🤡🌏
 

The_Mike

Member
Nov 5, 2017
4,240
6,131
635
Denmark
The denial is from one side:

“When we think about Bethesda, it's going to be the continuing to allow -- I'll say allow, but continue to sell their games on the platforms that they exist today, and we'll determine what that looks over time and will change over time”, the CFO said

So the big franchises coming out soonish, relatively speaking (Starfield, TES) will be on PS5/PS4 but after that, they will evaluate and may go full Xbox exclusive.

Or it could be meaning they won't stop sale on released games, and won't stop releasing content in eso.

As others stated, the vague description that can be understood both ways as it will be exclusive, or not, and that's because the transaction hasn't got completely through.

but continue to sell their games on the platforms that they exist today, and we'll determine what that looks over time and will change over time”,

"but continue to sell their (already released) on the platform that they exist today (does es6 and Starfield exist on ps5 today?). This could be a message about eso still being supported. How can you even ignore the last part: and we'll determine what that looks over time and will change over time”. Why on earth would they pay 7.5 fucking billion on a game company, and release their games on the competition platform?

I still need to get a valid reason to why Microsoft should buy Bethesda for 7.5 billion and release their games everywhere. Microsoft could sell all their franchises on ps5, but they won't. Why not when there's big money there?


It's denial.
 

Clear

Deer/Dur
Feb 2, 2009
11,767
6,185
1,245
The number of future CEOs and rockstar Investors on NeoGAFs grows every time this deal gets mentioned.

Panic buying a $7.5b publishing house.
Buying a publisher for better optimised ports.
Dropping $7.5b for timed exclusivity and early DLC.

Such amazing business understanding on display, I wonder why Microsoft doesn’t just run their business based on NeoGAF polls.

🤡🌏

Its not a panic buy to preempt rivals like Google or Amazon from stepping in to bolster their competing offering.

Do you guys not actually read what MS themselves have been saying about who they feel are their major competitors?
 

Handy Fake

Member
Mar 2, 2014
4,772
4,945
680
Sunderland
The number of future CEOs and rockstar Investors on NeoGAFs grows every time this deal gets mentioned.

Panic buying a $7.5b publishing house.
Buying a publisher for better optimised ports.
Dropping $7.5b for timed exclusivity and early DLC.

Such amazing business understanding on display, I wonder why Microsoft doesn’t just run their business based on NeoGAF polls.

🤡🌏
I'm just offering an opinion. There doesn't seem to be a decided roadmap for future releases from one statement to the next.
Xbox are having issues with game output and needed a big win under their belt, and Zenimax is certainly that.

Just trying to put two and two together with the information at hand chief, nothing more.
 
Aug 28, 2019
3,611
7,506
625
www.instagram.com
If they do this, it's a mistake. It's over.

If the big Bethesda games go to PS5 eventually then Series systems are done. PS fans have shown in the past they do not care if a game is a known timed-exclusive to Xbox because they'll simply either wait until it's on PS or not bother. See Rise of the Tomb Raider as an example of this.

I get that MS are after subscribers and active users in overall ecosystem but doing any cross-platform releases for the big (or really almost any) Bethesda titles to PlayStation is going to finish off growth for the Xbox brand in terms of console proliferation. Especially considering Sony's not once said anything about bringing their own 1P to Xbox platforms; if you want to do stuff like this, at least make sure it's a fair trade.

Anyway I'll see how it goes because I'm still potentially either way regards getting a Series X or PS5 H1 2021. But if they still plan on bringing more 1P (including the Bethesda/Zenimax) games to other ecosystems including PS5....well for me at least that cements PC/PS5 combo. Why even put stuff like this out there, it's like taking one step forward and two steps back IMHO.

EDIT: Now let me also look at it from this angle; since the Zenimax deal isn't finished, MS can't legally say anything about exclusivity, so they have to be a bit loose in their language. I get that much.

However, it's a bit worrying that they keep bringing up the topic and keep using language as seen here, because if someone starts saying the same thing in so many subtle ways enough times, you can pick up some hints. And I don't see how having "just" timed exclusivity for Bethetsda or Zenimax games on Xbox platforms ultimately benefits Xbox, because it doesn't necessarily dissolve the nagging narrative (that's always been somewhat fake, btw) of Xbox "having no games".

When people bring that up, they usually mean either console exclusives or (once Sony starts porting even more of their 1P to PC like Demon's Souls Remake) console/ecosystem exclusives. Usually permanent ones. Timed exclusivity on a Bethesda title, depending on when it releases in the Series ecosystem lifespan, won't really do too much to benefit the system or possibly even the ecosystem.

Yes, it's ultimately for Gamepass and I figure they see GP numbers hitting an amount by the time those Bethesda titles drop wherein they can simply push timed exclusivity through GP and possibly Xbox consoles and draw in people who don't game on console or have a severe case of FOMO. If so I wish them the best, but this kind of talk right now? At the start of a new gen? I gotta be honest, I'm not a fan of it.
 
Last edited:

fighterman101

Member
May 10, 2020
167
209
230
If they do this, it's a mistake. It's over.

If the big Bethesda games go to PS5 eventually then Series systems are done. PS fans have shown in the past they do not care if a game is a known timed-exclusive to Xbox because they'll simply either wait until it's on PS or not bother. See Rise of the Tomb Raider as an example of this.

I get that MS are after subscribers and active users in overall ecosystem but doing any cross-platform releases for the big (or really almost any) Bethesda titles to PlayStation is going to finish off growth for the Xbox brand in terms of console proliferation. Especially considering Sony's not once said anything about bringing their own 1P to Xbox platforms; if you want to do stuff like this, at least make sure it's a fair trade.

Anyway I'll see how it goes because I'm still potentially either way regards getting a Series X or PS5 H1 2021. But if they still plan on bringing more 1P (including the Bethesda/Zenimax) games to other ecosystems including PS5....well for me at least that cements PC/PS5 combo. Why even put stuff like this out there, it's like taking one step forward and two steps back IMHO.

Tomb Raider isn't exactly a "Huge game" like Skyrim and Fallout is. In fact, Tomb Raider might be dead as we speak sadly. I can guarantee the new IPs will be on the Playstation system such as Starfield because you have to do whatever it takes to make a new IP successful. However, the establish franchises? More than likely going to be an Xbox/PC exclusive. At least the way I see it.
 
Last edited:

The_Mike

Member
Nov 5, 2017
4,240
6,131
635
Denmark
I can guarantee the new IPs will be on the Playstation system such as Starfield because you have to do whatever it takes to make a new IP successful.

Theres more pc and Xbox players combined than there is on Playstation. I think the franchise will be fine without team blue.

If they do this, it's a mistake. It's over.

If the big Bethesda games go to PS5 eventually then Series systems are done. PS fans have shown in the past they do not care if a game is a known timed-exclusive to Xbox because they'll simply either wait until it's on PS or not bother. See Rise of the Tomb Raider as an example of this.

The majority of PS fans don't care about other games than PlayStation games. I clearly remember some who was sad about the acquisition, and many Fanboys who went from Bethesda is nice to "meh they make shit games anyway".

The quality alone isn't enough. A big aspect of which game is great is determined by the studio and the publisher.

This is for hardcore fanboys of course, and not everyone.
 
Last edited:

Megatron

Member
Feb 22, 2012
8,161
608
780
Anyone really still believe TES6 won't be a timed exclusive? Anyone? Really?

Edit: this meant to just say TES6, but for transparency I deleted "and Starfield"

if you mean it’s going to come to ps5, no it won’t.
 

fighterman101

Member
May 10, 2020
167
209
230
Theres more pc and Xbox players combined than there is on Playstation. I think the franchise will be fine without team blue.



The majority of PS fans don't care about other games than PlayStation games. I clearly remember some who was sad about the acquisition, and many Fanboys who went from Bethesda is nice to "meh they make shit games anyway".

The quality alone isn't enough. A big aspect of which game is great is determined by the studio and the publisher.

This is for hardcore fanboys of course, and not everyone.

Yes, but you want to increase your chance of success on a new ip. If the IP ends up being successful, make the sequels exclusive.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: The_Mike

The_Mike

Member
Nov 5, 2017
4,240
6,131
635
Denmark
Yes, but you want to increase your chance of success on a new ip. If the IP ends up being successful, make the sequels exclusive.

Why didn't Days Gone get released on Xbox One this gen? Or Spider man?

Is it only Microsoft who needs to increase their chance on getting a successful IP? What's going on with these double standards?

Also, es6 is a popular franchise, so according to your logic it will be exclusive, right?

Or is there a different approach there? "ES is already a multiplatform succes so they keep doing it. BUT the Starfield game will be released everywhere to see if they can establish it. And then make it exclu... Err.. I mean its already released so they make it multipla... Eh"

These arguments.
 

Megatron

Member
Feb 22, 2012
8,161
608
780
Yes, but you want to increase your chance of success on a new ip. If the IP ends up being successful, make the sequels exclusive.
Nah. It’s not that important. It’s much better to have huge hammers that drive people to your environment. If you make them multi, people will refuse to believe the sequels won’t eventually be multi also. Better to train expectations from the beginning.

starfield, who knows, though, because we don’t know where they got in the contracts. We know Sony approached them for exclusivity, we don’t know if any commitments were made.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MrFunSocks

fighterman101

Member
May 10, 2020
167
209
230
Nah. It’s not that important. It’s much better to have huge hammers that drive people to your environment. If you make them multi, people will refuse to believe the sequels won’t eventually be multi also. Better to train expectations from the beginning.

starfield, who knows, though, because we don’t know where they got in the contracts. We know Sony approaches them for exclusivity, we don’t know if any commitments were made.

Nah, better make a game popular and have a huge fanbase. Then, make playstation owners buy and xbox by making the sequels exclusive.
 

fighterman101

Member
May 10, 2020
167
209
230
Why didn't Days Gone get released on Xbox One this gen? Or Spider man?

Is it only Microsoft who needs to increase their chance on getting a successful IP? What's going on with these double standards?

Also, es6 is a popular franchise, so according to your logic it will be exclusive, right?

Or is there a different approach there? "ES is already a multiplatform succes so they keep doing it. BUT the Starfield game will be released everywhere to see if they can establish it. And then make it exclu... Err.. I mean its already released so they make it multipla... Eh"

These arguments.

Yes, ES6 and fallout will be console exclusive to xbox because its a known franchise people care about. No one knows what starfield even is and if it will be a success or not. Try to make the game successful and then tell the competitors tough shit with the sequels (assuming people bought it). Minimize risk and play smart. You have to think about the long run over the short run.
 
Last edited:

Azurro

Member
Jun 11, 2018
1,762
3,097
420
This is very odd, definitely. Perhaps the vague wording is so that regulatory agencies don't get on MS's case and accuse them of monopolistic practices? But then again, Bethesda isn't THAT big. Strange.
 

The_Mike

Member
Nov 5, 2017
4,240
6,131
635
Denmark
Yes, ES6 and fallout will be console exclusive to xbox because its a known franchise people care about. No one knows what starfield even is and if it will be a success or not.

That's fair. Sorry if I judged your opinion, I'm just so used to see people still thinking ES coming to PS5.

But I don't see Starfield coming to PS5, as the same reason Sony doesn't release new exclusives on xbox.
 

petran79

Banned
Sep 17, 2012
10,417
1,808
910
Who in their right mind would buy Bethesda games on Xbox when the core players are on Windows with free mods too
 

fighterman101

Member
May 10, 2020
167
209
230
That's fair. Sorry if I judged your opinion, I'm just so used to see people still thinking ES coming to PS5.

But I don't see Starfield coming to PS5, as the same reason Sony doesn't release new exclusives on xbox.
Long run investment over short run investment. Do whatever it takes to get everyone interested in the game first. You can always make the next sequels exclusive to xbox. Not to mention the advantage is still with Microsoft because they will release it day one on xbox game.
 

The_Mike

Member
Nov 5, 2017
4,240
6,131
635
Denmark
Long run investment over short run investment. Do whatever it takes to get everyone interested in the game first. You can always make the next sequels exclusive to xbox. Not to mention the advantage is still with Microsoft because they will release it day one on xbox game.

But why does Sony not invest in other platforms and let their first game like days gone and horizon get to Xbox as well? What's the difference?
 
Aug 28, 2019
3,611
7,506
625
www.instagram.com
Tomb Raider isn't exactly a "Huge game" like Skyrim and Fallout is. In fact, Tomb Raider might be dead as we speak sadly. I can guarantee the new IPs will be on the Playstation system such as Starfield because you have to do whatever it takes to make a new IP successful. However, the establish franchises? More than likely going to be an Xbox/PC exclusive. At least the way I see it.

Again, though, that argument doesn't hold up. Sony will be making new IP this gen; if they want to do everything it takes to make them successful, why not release those on Xbox? Why not do parity between those and PC? Or bring them to Nintendo platforms? The same can be said for Nintendo's games to other platforms, too.

All it all it always sounds like excuses to me, and a defeatist mindset. It creates a catch-22 for MS if they start doing that because it will condition PS (and Nintendo to a lesser extent)-only players to stay in that ecosystem. So MS loses potential Series console sales, they lose a 30% cut to Sony no matter what, and they might even lose potential Gamepass subscribers.

How is that in any way a smart business decision, this early on? If they want to start doing that in say 2024 or so, fine, because at least by then you've allowed the Xbox brand time to breath and build itself up, and you won't be pissing off loyal fans who bought the consoles Day 1 or in the first year or two. But in terms of optics I don't see them pushing for that even as soon as Starfield, as a smart decision, and it'll hurt more than it'll help.

Theres more pc and Xbox players combined than there is on Playstation. I think the franchise will be fine without team blue.



The majority of PS fans don't care about other games than PlayStation games. I clearly remember some who was sad about the acquisition, and many Fanboys who went from Bethesda is nice to "meh they make shit games anyway".

The quality alone isn't enough. A big aspect of which game is great is determined by the studio and the publisher.

This is for hardcore fanboys of course, and not everyone.

That's exactly what happened, but it's a reflex reaction. Like a stern parent you can't give in to those temper tantrums; if you give enough reasons on your end even the most stubborn will eventually accept what you've got to offer.

Is MS willing to play hardball, is the question? A market leader has to be willing to do so, and we can't pretend that Bethesda games weren't almost exclusively associated with Xbox in the past until Skyrim released. So there is precedent on that note, for them on console.

I just don't see why it's okay for Sony and Nintendo to have platform exclusives, but then when MS starts to address the issue many people asked them to address, they are called monopolistic for leveraging the same advantages Sony did back in the mid-90s (and most of the '00s), and suddenly MS are depraving PS and Nintendo fans of games even if those same games are also on PC and mobile (latter via Xcloud), and they have a great subscription service in Gamepass that those games will be in Day 1 that is quite cheap to sub to.

That aught to be enough, MS aught to realize that's enough. Hopefully they do and are just talking to talk, because again for legal reasons they can't say any of these games will stay exclusive to their ecosystem or not until the deal is 100% finalized.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: EDMIX
Feb 15, 2013
8,873
7,539
775
London
EDIT: Now let me also look at it from this angle; since the Zenimax deal isn't finished, MS can't legally say anything about exclusivity, so they have to be a bit loose in their language. I get that much.

However, it's a bit worrying that they keep bringing up the topic and keep using language as seen here, because if someone starts saying the same thing in so many subtle ways enough times, you can pick up some hints. And I don't see how having "just" timed exclusivity for Bethetsda or Zenimax games on Xbox platforms ultimately benefits Xbox, because it doesn't necessarily dissolve the nagging narrative (that's always been somewhat fake, btw) of Xbox "having no games".

When people bring that up, they usually mean either console exclusives or (once Sony starts porting even more of their 1P to PC like Demon's Souls Remake) console/ecosystem exclusives. Usually permanent ones. Timed exclusivity on a Bethesda title, depending on when it releases in the Series ecosystem lifespan, won't really do too much to benefit the system or possibly even the ecosystem.

Yes, it's ultimately for Gamepass and I figure they see GP numbers hitting an amount by the time those Bethesda titles drop wherein they can simply push timed exclusivity through GP and possibly Xbox consoles and draw in people who don't game on console or have a severe case of FOMO. If so I wish them the best, but this kind of talk right now? At the start of a new gen? I gotta be honest, I'm not a fan of it.

I read someone posit that it could be a stipulation in the very deal that currently in development titles will NOT be made exclusive, otherwise the deal is not going to be ratified by the founders/owners/shareholders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EDMIX

Mister Wolf

Member
Sep 21, 2014
5,535
5,675
695
They are getting a kick out of dick teasing us. Im going to just wait until Starfield next year to see what's what.
 

fighterman101

Member
May 10, 2020
167
209
230
But why does Sony not invest in other platforms and let their first game like days gone and horizon get to Xbox as well? What's the difference?

Different strategies that may or may not payout. Days gone and Horizon were successful, but Sony had a lot of new ips that failed as well. Microsoft is all about minimizing risk to please shareholders. The shareholders are the key to all of this. Sony has always been an entertainment oriented company from the beginning whereas Microsoft has been a business oriented company. Sony investors are willing to take more chances than Microsoft because they think more from an entertainment perspective (creativity) than a business perspective. That is why Microsoft acquired companies with past successes or moderate successes with proven solutions/ips that have actually worked. Which is an advantage because no one will deny how big the Elder scrolls, Fallout, and Minecraft ips are. Where Sony is willing to take risks and create new ips like Death Stranding and Horizon to see if it works out.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: EDMIX

fighterman101

Member
May 10, 2020
167
209
230
Again, though, that argument doesn't hold up. Sony will be making new IP this gen; if they want to do everything it takes to make them successful, why not release those on Xbox? Why not do parity between those and PC? Or bring them to Nintendo platforms? The same can be said for Nintendo's games to other platforms, too.

All it all it always sounds like excuses to me, and a defeatist mindset. It creates a catch-22 for MS if they start doing that because it will condition PS (and Nintendo to a lesser extent)-only players to stay in that ecosystem. So MS loses potential Series console sales, they lose a 30% cut to Sony no matter what, and they might even lose potential Gamepass subscribers.

How is that in any way a smart business decision, this early on? If they want to start doing that in say 2024 or so, fine, because at least by then you've allowed the Xbox brand time to breath and build itself up, and you won't be pissing off loyal fans who bought the consoles Day 1 or in the first year or two. But in terms of optics I don't see them pushing for that even as soon as Starfield, as a smart decision, and it'll hurt more than it'll help.



That's exactly what happened, but it's a reflex reaction. Like a stern parent you can't give in to those temper tantrums; if you give enough reasons on your end even the most stubborn will eventually accept what you've got to offer.

Is MS willing to play hardball, is the question? A market leader has to be willing to do so, and we can't pretend that Bethesda games weren't almost exclusively associated with Xbox in the past until Skyrim released. So there is precedent on that note, for them on console.

I just don't see why it's okay for Sony and Nintendo to have platform exclusives, but then when MS starts to address the issue many people asked them to address, they are called monopolistic for leveraging the same advantages Sony did back in the mid-90s (and most of the '00s), and suddenly MS are depraving PS and Nintendo fans of games even if those same games are also on PC and mobile (latter via Xcloud), and they have a great subscription service in Gamepass that those games will be in Day 1 that is quite cheap to sub to.

That aught to be enough, MS aught to realize that's enough. Hopefully they do and are just talking to talk, because again for legal reasons they can't say any of these games will stay exclusive to their ecosystem or not until the deal is 100% finalized.


Please see my post about how shareholders are the key to all of this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EDMIX

mr.dilya

Member
Jan 7, 2018
804
1,261
455
It's all political speak. Those big bethesda games are not going to be on Playstation. Accept it and move on.
 
  • Fire
Reactions: octiny

Raven117

Member
Oct 5, 2015
6,053
2,500
565
Wait, I was assured that this could not happen on this very forum. They said it would never happen.

I said, well, it could make alot of business sense for some sort of timed-exclusive or other type arrangment. I was told, no, never going to happen.

Yup.
 

Nhranaghacon

Troll. Ignore my threads and posts. I won't be here long.
Sep 15, 2020
446
508
430
So this instantly makes PC an Xbox game platform, as Xbox GamePass is a Platform on both Xbox and PC - good.

Also, both Ori and Minecraft are First party IP's essentially, and both are successful cross platform games and keep getting supported by Microsoft. Microsoft is primarily a software company that jumped into console hardware - if anyone knows how to exploit software sales / software ecosystems it's Microsoft. And they have shown massive interest in releasing games across platform. Ass illustrated by the Newest Ori game - built specifically as a Microsoft first Party IP but to exist on more than Microsoft's own platform.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Deer/Dur
Feb 2, 2009
11,767
6,185
1,245
But why does Sony not invest in other platforms and let their first game like days gone and horizon get to Xbox as well? What's the difference?

Maybe because they haven't invested $7.5b into acquiring them LOL.

The more pertinent question is why would MS continue to support Minecraft on Playstation despite Sony refusing to play ball on allowing XBL sign-in and dragging their feet on cross-play?
 

the_master

Member
Aug 27, 2007
762
998
1,285
Barcelona, Spain, Europe.
They are telling us that they will change the model.
Games will become exclusive after the deal is signed. Maybe a few months later, maybe a year. But games will obviously become xbox exclusive like the rest of the first party titles
 
Aug 28, 2019
3,611
7,506
625
www.instagram.com
Please see my post about how shareholders are the key to all of this.

I saw it, and it's a nice writeup, but I don't think the shareholders are doing what's best for the Xbox division if that's the trajectory they want to take. The thing about minimizing risks works both ways; if you don't take enough risks, you could miss out on the next big thing.

That has actually screwed MS over in the past; since they were so busy dealing with Netscape back in the day, they completely missed out on the search engine revolution starting at the time, which allowed Google to become a giant. As they were trying to catch on the smartphone phenomenon Apple sparked, they missed out on laying solid seeds in the social media revolution that was quietly beginning at that time, too.

Plus for an area like entertainment, you HAVE to take risks because it's that type of market. So if shareholders want MS to apply the same strategy they do with their business software and services 100% to the gaming market, they need to reevaluate a few things. What works in one area does not always work in the other.

And FWIW, MS have definitely shown willingness to invest in new IP. Ori is a good example of this, and games like Grounded, AFAIK, are still exclusive to the Xbox ecosystem; if they don't need PlayStation or Nintendo for that game, why do they suddenly need those ecosystems for a Starfield? Considering as well, in the past, they've had to observe that a big new IP that is marketed well, will generally draw people to that brand.

That's what the 360's success was built on, after all. Yes, they weren't 1P games, but a lot of those big 3P exclusives that bolstered the platform, like Mass Effect, at the time those were new IP. And they worked. It's nowhere near impossible for a company like MS to replicate that type of success if companies like Sony and Nintendo have managed to.

To the same degree, if the idea is that if a new IP fails, spreading it to new platforms could help give it a second life, why has Nintendo failed to do this with, say, ARMS? Surely they could bring that to PlayStation or Xbox, or PC, and maybe see the IP grow as a result, which could fuel a sequel. Instead the IP is effectively dead, because the only metric Nintendo has to judge its success on, is its Switch sales numbers which could've been the way they were for any multitude of reasons.
 

The_Mike

Member
Nov 5, 2017
4,240
6,131
635
Denmark
Maybe because they haven't invested $7.5b into acquiring them LOL.

The more pertinent question is why would MS continue to support Minecraft on Playstation despite Sony refusing to play ball on allowing XBL sign-in and dragging their feet on cross-play?

Minecraft were already released on ps4. Ps4 dont receive more content because they didn't allow xbox sign in.

Why does everything change because they invested 7. 5 billion in it? You make it sound like it was their entire bank account and they are about to go bankrupt. If they didn't acquire it to have more exclusive portfolio, then Microsoft would've been multiplatform long time ago. God damn it take your delusional fanboy glasses off.

And you will probably still be shocked to see es6 won't get released on ps5 because you are so blinded by everything needs to be on Playstation to succeed.
 

Garani

Member
Oct 22, 2014
562
1,923
555
Kinda late to the party, but this how I read it:

Option A: DirectX Exclusive. That means PCs, XBox, Gamepass.

Option B: DirectX timed excusive, then release an inferior version for other platforms (like making then run at 30 fps, no RT, bad assets.

For how I see it, they can go with Option A and be done with it. They have no market to sell too, other than the PCs, so the rest of the world may just stop caring.
 
Aug 28, 2019
3,611
7,506
625
www.instagram.com
Kinda late to the party, but this how I read it:

Option A: DirectX Exclusive. That means PCs, XBox, Gamepass.

Option B: DirectX timed excusive, then release an inferior version for other platforms (like making then run at 30 fps, no RT, bad assets.

For how I see it, they can go with Option A and be done with it. They have no market to sell too, other than the PCs, so the rest of the world may just stop caring.

Did you miss the news of Series systems outdoing XBO launch day numbers globally? Most estimates pegging it between 1.2 million - 1.4 million?

Sounds like a market is there in the console space for sure. But, if they actually do bring these Bethesda/Zenimax games to other ecosystem through devices that exclusively serve those other ecosystems, that could run a risk of driving interest to "just PC...

...which still wouldn't result in the rest of the world "not caring". Last I checked games like League of Legends are PC-only yet are simultaneously some of the most popular games in the world (easily surpassing playerbases and revenue of both Sony and even Nintendo exclusives).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The_Mike

MrFunSocks

Banned
Jul 9, 2020
3,019
5,437
645
Of course Team Blue reads more into this than they should lol.

But what we want is we want that content, in the long run, to be either first or better or best or pick your differentiated experience, on our platforms.

ON OUR PLATFORMS. PlayStation is not a Microsoft platform. Their platforms would consist of whatever platform allows game pass, which is currently PC and Xbox. If Sony allow game pass they'll probably release on PlayStation, but the chances of that happening are zero.

But if you think about something like Game Pass, if it shows up best in Game Pass, that's what we want to see

Again - Zenimax games will release on Game Pass, wherever Game Pass is. If Game Pass is not on PlayStation, Zenimax games won't be either.

You guys are just setting yourself up for even more disappointment.
 

Clear

Deer/Dur
Feb 2, 2009
11,767
6,185
1,245
Why does everything change because they invested 7. 5 billion in it?

Shareholders.

I really couldn't care less what MS decide to do, I personally believe a mixed strategy is what they'll go for because between sunk cost and running costs for all these studios, investers will demand to see evidence that the money was well-spent sooner rather than later.

Its a fucking huge amount of money by any standards.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: EDMIX

The_Mike

Member
Nov 5, 2017
4,240
6,131
635
Denmark
Shareholders.

I really couldn't care less what MS decide to do, I personally believe a mixed strategy is what they'll go for because between sunk cost and running costs for all these studios, investers will demand to see evidence that the money was well-spent sooner rather than later.

Its a fucking huge amount of money by any standards.

Will the shareholders be happy about supporting a dead system? They have a business to run, and I doubt Microsoft feels forced to go multiplatform because of shareholders. Again, if that was the case then Microsoft would have been multiplatform years ago.
 

EDMIX

Gold Member
Apr 5, 2018
4,759
3,657
525
32
South Florida aka Outer Haven
Why Sony leaves free money on the table by not releasing games on other platforms?

They are putting some of their titles on PC, also this isn't about Sony, its about MS. Its MS that spends billions on IPs and then puts them on many platforms. Its simply something Nintendo or Sony have done much if ever.

MS has done this already with Minecraft so bring up "Sony" is irrelevant. They are different publishers with different views. Sony doesn't fucking have a desire to be 3rd party and Sony doesn't own a PC OS. Massive difference.

Sweet I guess that means God of War and Spiderman are coming to Xbox next year. You are all delusional if you still think games like Starfield and ES6 are coming to PS5

Not really... THIS YEAR a new Minecraft game came to PS, Nintendo etc. So MS spending billions to buy an IP and to put it on many systems is something MICROSFT DOES, it isn't really something Sony or Nintendo do. You could have fucking said someone would be "delusional if you still think games like MINECRAFT are coming to PS and Nintendo" yet...



So why argue something won't happen with a MS IP they spent billions on, that is happening to another IP they spent even less money on? So this argument that Sony or Nintendo are not doing this or that doesn't fucking actually answer that MS still does it. Its simply an attempt to make it seem as if it can't really happen, ignoring that its happening as of 2020...THIS YEAR, RIGHT FUCKING NOW WITH AN IP THEY SPENT almost 3 BILLION ON, but shit, spending 3x more will have a different result?

Not likely my friend. Theses comments indicate that they likely have similar plans with this IP that they did with Minecraft and it makes complete sense why. It might be too much money to spend to then fucking sell to less consumers.
 

Clear

Deer/Dur
Feb 2, 2009
11,767
6,185
1,245
Will the shareholders be happy about supporting a dead system? They have a business to run, and I doubt Microsoft feels forced to go multiplatform because of shareholders. Again, if that was the case then Microsoft would have been multiplatform years ago.

Its all about GamePass and XCloud. That's the gateway through which they expect users on everything from PC to mobile will access the content. In that respect they are multi-platform already. All this expenditure is about building a product pipeline with which to drive the service model.

When they say "we no longer see Sony as a competitor", what they meant is that they have set their sights on a much wider market. Sony have shown limited interest in expanding out beyond the Playstation line of consoles, meaning that their peak anticipated marketshare is pretty much a known quantity.

On the other hand companies like Amazon and Google stand to gain way more from owning a publisher like Zenimax, because it would give them instant credibility, a foothold with which to build their own competing services to GamePass/Xcloud. They have the cash on hand and they have the tech to do it. What they lack is IP and established brands to legitimize themselves as being a equal competitors.

MS did not buy Zenimax thinking about Sony at all.
 

Garani

Member
Oct 22, 2014
562
1,923
555
Did you miss the news of Series systems outdoing XBO launch day numbers globally? Most estimates pegging it between 1.2 million - 1.4 million?

And? Sony has a 115+million consoles already installed and they sold more PS5 preorders in a day than in 6 weeks of PS4 preorders. As soon as MS goes exclusive they will market only for PCs, because Gamepass hasn't got the numbers to sustain development costs.

But I am ok with it: if the other platforms must get an inferior version, they are better off not getting anything.
 

Garani

Member
Oct 22, 2014
562
1,923
555
Its all about GamePass and XCloud. That's the gateway through which they expect users on everything from PC to mobile will access the content. In that respect they are multi-platform already. All this expenditure is about building a product pipeline with which to drive the service model.

Gamepass isn't sustainble, but we'll see.

MS did not buy Zenimax thinking about Sony at all.

Yes they did, but not in the way that you think.
 
  • LOL
  • Like
Reactions: Wizz-Art and EDMIX

devilNprada

Member
May 2, 2019
963
1,130
360
That's fair. Sorry if I judged your opinion, I'm just so used to see people still thinking ES coming to PS5.

But I don't see Starfield coming to PS5, as the same reason Sony doesn't release new exclusives on xbox.

Who cares if TES comes or goes to PS5 or not... Playstation has literally always been the worse way to play TES.

The real losers will be TES fans that get an underwelming TES game made for Game Pass.
 
  • LOL
  • Like
Reactions: The_Mike and EDMIX

Andodalf

Member
Oct 20, 2013
4,847
6,731
875
23
Earth
Who in their right mind would buy Bethesda games on Xbox when the core players are on Windows with free mods too

A lot of people don’t having gaming PCs, and the Xbox versions of Fallout and Skyrim have pretty solid mod support
 

MrFunSocks

Banned
Jul 9, 2020
3,019
5,437
645
Gamepass isn't sustainble, but we'll see.
How do you know this? You're just making baseless assumptions.

Game Pass is a loss leader. It's not supposed to make profit by itself. It's there to lock people into the xbox ecosystem, where they will spend much more money and bring in much more profit than game pass cost them.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Wizz-Art