Microsoft shouldn't be generous when it comes to Bethesda exclusivity

I'm hearing it might piss peope off...who? Sony fanboys? I'm sorry. When Sony moneyhat timed exclusives left and right(still waiting for FF7 remake on pc for fuck sake) it's fine and dandy. Deathloop and ghostwire too. But when it's MS who aren't paying for timed exclusivity because they own thr companies they have to play nice?

I don't understand and get this narrative at all. For many generations people had to buy ps Consoles to play exclusive games. Pc Nintendo or Xbox players. Maybe it should be the other way around for once. Get an Xbox or a pc if you want to play ES6.

Microsoft should see what Sony are pulling and do the same. Only forget the timed exclusivity.

There's too much bias and favoritism when it comes to Sony and Microsoft. It's kind of sad. I will own all the systems But the notion that ms need to play nice is obscure. Noone says anything about Sony. I guess blind loyalty can do that.

Microsoft gets sales they wouldn't have otherwise gotten and more people get to play the games, it's a win-win.

Huh?

Why do you care if Microsoft offers the games to more players? Who does it hurt? Microsoft? A literal trillion dollar corporation?

I am fully on the side of consumers here, and the consumers benefit most when games are available on as many platforms as possible. Microsoft's strategy has been to put games on multiple platforms (people are acting like Microsoft doesn't publish PlayStation games already, but Minecraft and Minecraft Dungeons are available on PlayStation, and Microsoft let Cuphead go there.)

Is Microsoft obligated to publish on PlayStation? Not to my knowledge (though it's possible that they cut a deal with regulators to keep publishing there; we don't know the details of that.). If it thinks that it will make the most money sticking to Xbox and PC then I'm sure it will do that, and, whatever, it's just business. But rooting for them not to publish on PlayStation if they think that's what's best for them...why? Why root against people getting to play what they want to play on the platforms they want?

I think Xbox as a platform is probably going to peter out. Microsoft clearly isn't that interested in the hardware business (not that the Series X isn't a well made console, but Phil Spencer has repeatedly said he doesn't care where people play MS games and all MS games are on PC, sometimes before Xbox like with Gears Tactics) so if they think that being on PlayStation makes sense...they should do it.

One thing's for sure...Microsoft will never be "generous." They will do whatever matches their business plan.

You want MS to make Bethesda's titles exclusive because of a small vocal minority, MS business plan isn't based on fanboy score settling.

Also since when have MS not been in the time exclusive club. MS just launched a console with Yakuza: Like a Dragon and Tetris Effect the latter with a next gen timed exclusive update.

MS are just a bad as every other platform holder, not counting nearly every new game launching into Game Pass has some sort of exclusivity tied to them.

I genuinely don’t understand your beef here.

I cannot for the life of me understand anyone rooting for games to be accessible to less people. If Microsoft wants to do that, I suppose that’s their prerogative, but cheering on industry consolidation is so incredibly short sighted.

Completely different companies with different mindsets.
Microsoft is a software first company.
Sony is a hardware first company.

The idea that Microsoft MIGHT sell ES6 on PS5 makes sense for a software company. They sell MS Office for iOS too.
Sony NEEDS Playstation to succeed to stay in the games business. MS can lose the Xbox entirely and still sell on PC. They just don't have the same motivations. Microsoft makes money selling games, selling games on PS5 is selling games, so sell games.

@dareitus: this is not entirely true. Sony isn’t really a hardware company with PlayStation, it is a platform holder. It makes its real money not on hardware but on royalty fees from games published on the hardware and its own games. PS5 loses money on hardware right now.

Microsoft has the same incentives in terms of making money on Xbox royalty fees. It would have gotten out of the games business a long time ago if it had to rely on first party titles as its income stream.

Microsoft is currently pivoting to services with Gamepass. It wants to sell subscriptions not software or hardware or even really platform royalties. It sees subscription income as the future of games, with maybe some platform fees for DLC.

That is what is going on right now with MS. They are pivoting from platform holder to services company. Gamepass on PlayStation would be a huge win for them and it is likely the goal that would get them to publish on PlayStation, rather than pure software sales.

But why do you want Microsoft to do the same thing that you seem to dislike?

Will the Xbox become a third party brand just like Sega did?

Why not?

I agree timed exclusivity is kinda bullshit but most of Sonys big titles are first party sony IP's, so they probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for them (Like GOW, Horizon, Uncharted, Ratchet etc.) so it's a bit of a different situation.

Bethesdas IPs has been multiplatform for a long time so I think a lot of people will be upset if they can't play the next installment of let's say Doom, Fallout, Elder Scrolls or Wolfenstein. It will be interesting to see what route they choose, having first party microsoft games on playstation is a strange thought, but so would having all these old and celebrated IPs being locked in to the Microsoft platform.

as a consumer- why wouldn't you want games on every platform? it seems every other line of argumentation either requires that you have a personal stake in the success of a company (which is weird, unless you're a shareholder) or you want to deny others access to software- which again, weird.

@gtxforza: I mean, that kind of seems to be the end goal and already how it works on PC. MS literally ARE gaming PCs (yes, I know linux has made great strides. It is still a cluster unless you are running a server or a cluster) but the xbox store is just one of many options that is getting a not insignificant market share because of stuff like gamepass and is one of multiple ways to play forza or whatever. No reason that wouldn't eventually spread to consoles where the games are generally cross platform with MS branded hardware (think "steam machines" but less stupid) for an "it just works" experience

But as for Bethesda: I am sure there will be exclusives because that is why you spend insane amounts of money. But this is Bethesda. Skyrim has been on every platform and probably runs on at least one home pregnancy kit by now. I suspect we'll still see TES6 and maybe even Starfall as a cross platform. I could MAYBE see the next DOOM or Wolfenstein being "not Sony" exclusives but I am similarly skeptical of that because it is a lot of money.

But Prey or Dishonored? Those are at the level where the emphasis to get into an ecosystem might be worth the loss in Sony sales?

What an odd argument to make as an adult

Don't worry, whatever happens will not be because of their generosity.

On a side note, I liked to see Death of the Outsiders on Game Pass damnit!

@gtxforza: Not really. It wants to be like Netflix, not like Sega. It also owns Windows and I'm sure it will keep its Windows Store open and let people buy games through that, so even if it doesn't have Xbox any more (and I don't think Xbox will end this generation and maybe even not next) it isn't truly a third party publisher, or at least not purely a third party publisher (remember that it publishes Minecraft on everything so it already is in part third party.)

Basically Microsoft wants to make money by selling subscriptions and then licensing and producing its own content for those subscriptions. That's the business model it's currently trending towards. Phil Spencer is smart and doesn't want to alienate current Xbox users, who are the core fans of its biggest IP and make up the majority of its subscribers, so it will continue to support Xbox for quite awhile and Bethesda games may not publish on PlayStation thought they will NOT be Xbox exclusives because they will be on PC in various places, and some of them may continue to come to Nintendo (Microsoft does publish games on Switch already, and not just Minecraft.)

But if Game Pass works out that will be Microsoft's business focus. You can buy a PC and play Game Pass games there. You can buy an Xbox and play Game Pass games there if that's what people want (and if that's popular then Microsoft will keep making Xboxes.) You can play Game Pass games on your IOS or Android phone or tablet. If Microsoft gets its way you will be able to play on PlayStation. And if you would prefer to buy your games a la cart and not subscribe to Game Pass then Microsoft will probably sell them to you that way, just like how Netflix shows go on DVD. It's more profitable on a per game basis anyway.

But Microsoft has never really made substantial money in the games business as a platform holder and it sees how much Netflix makes and it wants to be in that business. And that's where it's headed. If Xbox experiences a big surge in popularity and does well this gen then I'm sure it will run on both tracks for awhile. Why not? They're not mutually exclusive. And if Game Pass fails then it may go back to being a traditional console platform holder. But Game Pass is the product right now, and Xbox is just another way to get that product to consumers.

@mellotronrules: The Xbox division is such a tiny piece of Microsoft that even shareholders shouldn't care about this.

Plus Microsoft will do whatever it thinks will be most profitable anyway. If they put the games on PlayStation you can be danged sure that that's what Phil Spencer thinks will be best for Microsoft shareholders in some way, at least by certain metrics.

Most consumers want every game on every platform. I don't think anyone really has the double standard you're describing, there just tends to be more talk surrounding MS putting games out on rival platforms because it has a much higher chance of actually happening.

They want more sales but they also want to sell more consoles. Exclusivity sells consoles. Either way they win because they’re either pushing more boxes or pushing more games. At this point it’s really a matter of reputation. Sony isn’t all that concerned with getting more sales by opening up their exclusive library because they’re pushing playstations and getting people in their ecosystem.

I’m pro Microsoft because I want Sony and Nintendo to get their collective heads out of the sand. Sony’s abysmal PlayStation store, lack of care for backwards compatibility, and just generally terrible but acclaimed 3rd person action copy and paste template. What they’re doing with VR and maybe a better backwards compatible initiative (did they wait until November to announce PS4 functionality *middle finger*?) might get me back. And Nintendo just doing what it’s doing. Microsoft is putting their foot on their necks and consumers benefit more from that than having a Bethesda catalog available on the other consoles.

Love to be an adult who cheers for companies worth billions like it's 2010 again.

For some reason I came into the thread thinking I might get to read some smart business insight as reason for the thesis statement, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that I got this instead. Broad generalizations about 'bias and favoritism' from unknown masses is a really odd thing to get hung up on, who are you even talking about? I can't say I've heard this narrative being pushed in any extensive fashion like you claim.

Capitalism: The Thread...

Seriously though. I get where OP is coming from but damn if it isn't the most shitty sign of late stage capitalism

@bigsocrates: my problem is more so of the criticism ns will get when Sony get 0 criticism.

Its great when Sony does it but not when ms does it. It's clear bias.

@bigsocrates: @bigsocrates:

I didnt say "sony is a hardware company with playstation"

Nor did i say "microsoft is a software company with xbox"

Sony is a hardware company. End statement.

Microsoft is a software company. End statement.

Your deeper discussion of subscription models and whatever is just deeper extrapolation of the same argument. Subscriptions are software sales. You're being pedantic.

You'd have to be a child to make this kind of argument

I love seeing the blind / mindless tribalism of fanboys cheering for a trillion-dollar tech giant consolidating the 3rd party video game market.

This isn't a return to the "console wars" of the 360 / PS3, this is the early stages of video game monopolism, where Microsoft simply outspends Nintendo and Sony to starve them out of the market.

Monopolism and market consolidation is a lose-lose for consumers.

Industry consolidation is bad and the people cheering for it because they have some weird emotional attachment to a brand are fucking dumbasses

Take that, invisible Sony fanboy! Uppercut right in the kisser.\

OP doesn't make much sense to me, because last time this subject came up (Sony porting more games to PC in the future) the general opinion around here seemed to be that this was a good thing. I certainly didn't see a bunch of people be like UGHHH NO, SONY DONT GIVE THESE GAMES UP TO THE OUTSIDERS. THESE GAMES SHOULD REMAIN EXCLUSIVE BECAUSE I LIKE THAT I CAN PLAY GAMES THAT OTHERS CAN'T! So it seems like there's no double standard here to be upset about.

Chatter around Xbox putting their games outside the Xbox ecosystem has been high because they were very open about that being their philosophy. Especially the synergy with PC's. Sony has been only dipping their toes in that water every now and then, almost experimental, up until that Jim Ryan interview a few weeks ago confirmed that they will be doing more of that in the future. Naturally you didn't see a bunch of 'Whens this coming to PC?' messages around Spider-Man or TLOU2 before that. It was understood that Sony exclusives are only playable on Playstation.

Hopefully they don't see much of a drop in hardware sales by making these exclusives open to more people after a while and are able to do it with more and more games.

@haz_kaj: I guess if you need it to be said, here it is: it sucks that Sony doesn’t allow their games on other platforms. It also sucks that Microsoft and Nintendo do the same. It sucks in general that games are the only media that requires specific hardware from corporations to experience them. Capitalism sucks.

Could we maybe tone back all the personal attacks and insults? Or at least the drive by ones that can't be bothered to do more than call someone a name?

@haz_kaj: I am not going to pretend that people don't get tribal (I actually like the Epic store and... yeah.) but is there a particularly long history of push back against MS? All I can think of is Halo ("Fuckers stole that cool RTS that the dudes who made Marathon did. By the way, does anyone know how to actually play Marathon on PC?") and Gears of War ("... Yo, those sumbitches made Unreal. How dare you take that away from us. Oh god, I forgot UT3 existed. You can have Epic")

Generally speaking, consumers are grumpy but "okay" with "this would not exist if it was not an exclusive" games. Bayonetta 2 hurts but it is pretty accepted that that would be a kotaku article if it weren't for Nintendo. Same with a lot of Obsidian or From games.

Obviously there are exceptions (see EGS) but the general feel is that if a game "starts" as exclusive then it was made because of that deal but if a game "becomes" exclusive it isn't and is thus bad. That ignores the realities of games going over budget and scope remaining/expanding because the devs know they don't need to turn a profit in Q3 or sell the desks but it is the general approach people "accept".

The reason this gets a bit murkier is that Bethesda/Zenimax was, generally speaking, successful. Not as successful as people would like but they weren't going to be collapsing without pay for others work. So if MS starts "pulling" the already announced games like Starfield and (maybe) TES6 people are going to say "what the fuck"? But MS's policy until now has generally been "Finish your commitments" in ways that probably means Starfall will be cross platform and who the hell knows for the rest.

@bladeofcreation: BRANDS ARE OUR FRIENDS!

Starfield*

I am confused why everyone is worried with exclusivity when Microsoft has and extensive graveyard of developers. My money is Bethesda becoming a shell of it's former self, and becoming games designed by a committee of upper management afraid of risk.

This kind of discussion is the only thing that drives these boards. I’m sure this is how all the best ideas on post-covid ideas are getting shot down via zoom in the corporate world of making games. Sony and Nintendo can kick rocks. Microsoft is keeping them from really having the stranglehold on games like disappearing games on March 31st. .. etc.

I sometimes wonder whether Jim Sterling is preaching to the choir on a lot of his videos, and then I see this and realize: no, the problem's just deeper than I want to admit.

Seriously, cheering for one billion dollar company to "punish" another one for cheap, petty revenge just because of a personal grudge...

Be careful attaching your ego to a product, kids. You tend to take any criticism of said product personally.

@efesell: The part that's wild to me is how often I've seen this exact opinion in Reddit threads and on Twitter. Microsoft buying Bethesda has worked fanboys into a vicious frenzy. This is the Microsoft version of Sony fanboys having a temper tantrum about Horizon on PC. People need to grow up.

I absolutely will take a $499 and $599 ps3 as a college kid personally. I will take wii motion controls personally. Just like I’m taking their failure to combat scalpers personally. I don’t just take bullshit. Sorry.

Microsoft will do what makes the most money.

It might make more sense to sell Bethesda games on everything because it'll sell more. Or it might sell more consoles to have a major Bethesda title be exclusive.

Whatever they choose it'll be for the maximum amount of money they can earn.

I see where you're coming from, but ehhh. No.

Having Bethesda games be available everywhere is good for pretty much everyone, including Microsoft who'd get to continue their streak of consumer-friendly gestures and ingratiate themselves further with gamers.

I see there's too many Sony fans on here. If this was the other way around. NONE of you guys would want Sony to put their games on xbox. Bias is real it seems.

@finaldasa:

Yes they paid 7billion to help other companies.

Bethesda games would come out on xbox anyway. So why buy bethesda in the first place?

I think people are worried they won't be able to buy these games on a ps5. So want reassurance they'll come out on thst system.

@haz_kaj: They bought Bethesda for Game Pass.

I think that's pretty clear.

Subscription services need to produce their own content to be viable, and this was the easiest way to scale up content production. Now every Bethesda game will be day 1 on Game Pass and stay there forever with no contract negotiations or royalty fees. This not only gives them more content for the service but it gives them more leverage with other companies because they need those companies less.

Now will they also use it to promote Xbox? Of course. They have announced there will be at least some exclusive games. But this was driven by Game Pass.

@haz_kaj: They bought it because it increases revenue.

Every Bethesda game sold on any console will return value to Microsoft. If they didn't own Bethesda they'd only get a cut from Xbox sales.

Everything they do with Bethesda will be out of a business decision. It has little to do with what's right. If releasing a Bethesda game on the PS5 makes money AND makes them look good, win-win.

@haz_kaj: I think perhaps your take is just real bad. I don’t have a console bias because I’m not 14 on gamefaqs anymore.

This was the other way around. When the 360 came out Microsoft did the same exact thing with dropping money to get timed and full on exclusives. Remember Bioshock, Blue Dragon or Call of Duty maps? And even more recently Scalebound was another attempt at an exclusive. It annoyed people then, and now that Sony is doing the same thing as far as i can see it annoys people still. Sony dropping money for timed CoD maps, Destiny missions and locking up Insomniac (who made the exclusive Sunset Overdrive) and Spider-man all left people thinking that sucks for people on the other consoles. And recently everyone jumped on Sony for there stance on cross-play. Most people just want to play games and have fun, regardless of platform.

It is a little different since a good bit of franchises Bethesda owned where multi-platform, and now there potentially locked to one platform, whereas most exclusives start on one platform and stay there. So there is bound to be more frustration when there is a game you used to play now inaccessible. But to get behind a big company like Sony or Microsoft and say "yes those other guys finally get screwed" is an odd stance to take as a consumer.