Support NeoGAF

[MonarchJT]

Early Bethesda games like Starfield will be cross-gen, so you are looking at not just the ~5M PS5 userbase, but at 130M PS4/PS5 userbase.

Bethesda games sell a lot more on PlayStation. That's why they were valued at $7.5B. It'd be a big, bold move (not completely impossible, but a big move nevertheless) to pay $7.5B for games, then remove the biggest market for those games by not releasing them on PlayStation, and then putting those games on Gamepass that doesn't make much profit as of now.

is the same price that sony choose to pay for not realizing spiderman on other console and not on pc. millions of possible sales left on the table to make your platform enviable over the others which generates a figure chosen by the user to prefer your platform over another one. It will be even easier for Microsoft to do this because it is an enormously more stable company than Sony from an economic standpoint.

 

[Shmunter]

Exclusivity is a pivotal point in acquiring more customers. Nothing more to it.

MS could've achieved what you're suggesting without buying Bethesda.

One needs to look past emotions to evaluate business

 

[Elog]

is the same price that sony choose to pay for not realizing spiderman on other console and not on pc. millions of possible sales left on the table to make your platform enviable over the others which generates a figure chosen by the user to prefer your platform over 1 ultra. It will be even easier for Microsoft to do this because it is an enormously more stable company than Sony from an economic standpoint.

That is not how it works. Sony has never paid anything for Spiderman sales on other platforms. It is simply an opportunity cost for Sony. MS has paid real USD for Sony sales - and that is the majority of that profit - that is Heisenberg's point. Not impossible but highly unlikely that MS takes that multi billion USD cost on their quarterly earnings (if they would state '100% exclusive for Xbox' the balanced asset value for Bethesda/Zenimax would fail the impairment test and have to be written down by X%). My own opinion is that the comment the other day from MS about 'best' and 'first' should be seen in that light - timed exclusives, exclusive content for and most optimization for Xbox is a much more likely scenario than complete exclusivity - but who knows.

 

[Elios83]

Why would MS buy Zenimax to get timed exclusives? Sony gets timed exclusives all the time and they didn't have to buy the developers to do so. Do you think MS forgot how to aquire timed exclusives after the Tomb Raider deal you referenced?

How Microsoft was supposed to convince Bethesda to put games that take 7 years (a whole generation) to be developed on Gamepass day-one and Xbox exclusive otherwise? It would have been impossible. They should have basically paid them most of the development costs out of their pocket and that's just for a single game.
Seriously who is releasing such big games day-one on Gamepass besides Microsoft that is doing so losing money because their short term goal is just to expand the Gamepass userbase?
That is something that goes far beyond a simple traditional timed exclusive and a big reason to buy them if they're serious about expanding Gamepass.

Also I don't think that all the Zenimax/Bethesda games will be timed exclusives, first all I guess that the smaller teams like Arkane and Tango that have never had huge commercial success with their titles will be refocused on smaller AA titles, probably episodic. Id will probably continue its business as usual but PC/Xbox exclusive.
The issue is with the AAA frontloaded single player games that take 7 years to be developed.
There is absolutely no way to make these work financially by making them available day one on Gamepass. We all know that.
So either Microsoft is willing to take the financial hit it takes just to keep them exclusives forever or they try to be smart about it. And that means keep them exclusives for the time it makes sense to actually benefit Gamepass and their ecosystem and then release the games on other platforms to try to make some money back.
History has proven that once certain games are exclusive for one year their commercial appeal relatively to convincing people to jump on a certain platform or ecosystem to play it, is pretty much done. And that applies even more with a company like Microsoft that is offering really low entry barriers to play their games (you have Gamepass to not play the game full price, you have Series S to not spend much mony on dedicated hardware, or Xcloud if you don't want to buy hardware at all).

Imo Microsoft doesn't even share the console war mentality of their fans who want everything to be full exclusive for the sake of it. Their goals are to make Gamepass a success and to find a way to make the business model they have put in place viable. If Sony and Nintendo allowed it, Gamepass with all its games would be on Playstation and Switch tomorrow.

You really think MS has paid
$7.5b for timed exclusives? That's about 1000 times the going rate for a timed exclusive, I'm sure the MS shareholders would be really happy with that kind of financial stupidity.

See above. Releasing all the games made by a publisher regardless of the development costs day-one on Gamepass is something that has nothing to do with a traditional timed exclusive deal made on carefully selected titles by different publishers.
Also why Minecraft is totally multiplatform and it's Microsoft biggest and most successful game ever? They spent tons of money to buy Mojang as well.

 

[MonarchJT]

That is not how it works. Sony has never paid anything for Spiderman sales on other platforms. It is simply an opportunity cost for Sony. MS has paid real USD for Sony sales - and that is the majority of that profit - that is Heisenberg's point. Not impossible but highly unlikely that MS takes that multi billion USD cost on their quarterly earnings (if they would state '100% exclusive for Xbox' the balanced asset value for Bethesda/Zenimax would fail the impairment test and have to be written down by X%). My own opinion is that the comment the other day from MS about 'best' and 'first' should be seen in that light - timed exclusives, exclusive content for and most optimization for Xbox is a much more likely scenario than complete exclusivity - but who knows.

there will be everything ..exclusives , timed , dlc , and everything else...on top of better optimization.
Most games and system seller will be exclusive ( that's my opinion ) as sony would do as Nintendo would do as I would do and as you would do ))
Mmo's will be on sony too and old games haven't gotten enough sales to become platform defying
will end on playstation too.
because is the smartest thing to do
They couldn't talk about exclusivity because was against the law. This future bethesda event isnt being done to say "we payed 7.5b to release all games on our friend platform playstation"

 

[Elog]

there will be everything ..exclusives , timed , dlc , and everything else...on top of better optimization.
Most games and system seller will be exclusive bminnmy opinion as sony would do as Nintendo would do as I would do and as you would do ))

I would play timed exclusives and some exclusive content for the current pipeline that is discounted in the acquisition price to avoid any impairment failures and backlash from gamers. I would not do bad optimizations on other platforms due to the community backlash.

However, I would project and plan for some future completely undisclosed projects as 100% exclusive franchises - ofc.

 

[Ellery]

Nice. looking forward to it !

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I don’t see MS avoid PS with every game. Maybe some of the bigger titles are exclusive, some of the smaller titles go timed exclusive. By exclusive of course, I mean Xbox and Windows.

 

[Joho79]

Don’t you think they buy a lot of studios to make the brand more attractive? To make people consider their platform instead of others. Do you do that by releasing on other platforms or by making them exclusive to yours? I know what I believe.

 

[Bernkastel]

That is not how it works. Sony has never paid anything for Spiderman sales on other platforms. It is simply an opportunity cost for Sony. MS has paid real USD for Sony sales - and that is the majority of that profit - that is Heisenberg's point. Not impossible but highly unlikely that MS takes that multi billion USD cost on their quarterly earnings (if they would state '100% exclusive for Xbox' the balanced asset value for Bethesda/Zenimax would fail the impairment test and have to be written down by X%). My own opinion is that the comment the other day from MS about 'best' and 'first' should be seen in that light - timed exclusives, exclusive content for and most optimization for Xbox is a much more likely scenario than complete exclusivity - but who knows.

They are also on PC(most likely Steam), where majority Bethesda's sales come from.

would fail the impairment test and have to be written down by X%

How would you know what impairment test they fail? You think Zenimax studios titles cost more to develop then existing first party studio titles like Playground Games/343i/Obsidian/Coalition? Except for Bethesda most Zenimax studios are no bigger than other Xbox first party studios and for Bethesda console sales are a small fraction of PC sales.
There are so many variables people ignore and then talk like they are part of Microsoft board of directors.

 

[Heisenberg007]

is the same price that sony choose to pay for not realizing spiderman on other console and not on pc. millions of possible sales left on the table to make your platform enviable over the others which generates a figure chosen by the user to prefer your platform over another one. It will be even easier for Microsoft to do this because it is an enormously more stable company than Sony from an economic standpoint.

Not really. The two situations are very different -- hence the debate.

1) When Sony creates and sells an exclusive game, they only incur the development cost of the game. With Bethesda games, Xbox will be bearing the development cost + the $7.5B acquisition costs.
2) Keeping games off of Xbox is significantly cheaper for Sony. On the other hand, keeping games off of PlayStation is 200-300% more expensive more Xbox, in comparison.
3) We are talking specifically about Bethesda games (not existing XGS games, because this situation does not really apply to them). That's because the $7.5B purchase cost that MS paid is primarily because of how well Bethesda games sell on PlayStation. Without PS, recovering that cost will become 2-3 times tougher/spread out on a longer period for MS.
4) The PlayStation division is highly profitable and has always been (in 90% of the years). Investors wouldn't mind as much if a game does not sell 2 million more copies. That's not the case with the Xbox division.
5) Xbox would be putting those games already on GamePass for incremental growth because of putting Bethesda titles on Gamepass, which already doesn't produce much profit. Sony relies on selling each game separately for full-price. This makes recovery much easier, at least in the short term.

So, very different situations.

 

[pasterpl]

Timed exclusivity and gamepass including all those games makes gamepass attractive. The poster above articulated it well.

Xcloud is the pivotal point in acquiring sufficient subs for MS to lock it all away. If it’s to be the Netflix of gaming, it needs to be embraced everywhere, not just by the merge Xbox user base. Netflix would never have worked locked behind a bespoke piece of hardware. Nothing more to it.

you don’t see Netflix publishing their original shows on Disney+, hbo Max or amazon prime video, I guess that would bring some cash upfront from licensing deals and viewership would increase quite a lot for these shows, but goal is to deliver exclusive content and bring customers into their subscription by telling them you cannot access this content anywhere else. Netflix is on most of the devices, same as xCloud (goal is to have it on pc, android, iOS, mobiles and tablets, potentially TVs). Play station owners compared to overall market are small fraction, in addition, most will have mobile device they can access xCloud on Or smart Tv or pc that will run xCloud via native app or browser.

also people forget that this early in generation there isn’t too many ps5 owners out there, ms might publish some of Bethesda games on PS4 as user base is big, but next gen experience might be locked to Xbox, xCloud and pc.

 

[MonarchJT]

Not really. The two situations are very different -- hence the debate.

1) When Sony creates and sells an exclusive game, they only incur the development cost of the game. With Bethesda games, Xbox will be bearing the development cost + the $7.5B acquisition costs.
2) Keeping games off of Xbox is significantly cheaper for Sony. On the other hand, keeping games off of PlayStation is 200-300% more expensive more Xbox, in comparison.
3) We are talking specifically about Bethesda games (not existing XGS games, because this situation does not really apply to them). That's because the $7.5B purchase cost that MS paid is primarily because of how well Bethesda games sell on PlayStation. Without PS, recovering that cost will become 2-3 times tougher/spread out on a longer period for MS.
4) The PlayStation division is highly profitable and has always been (in 90% of the years). Investors wouldn't mind as much if a game does not sell 2 million more copies. That's not the case with the Xbox division.
5) Xbox would be putting those games already on GamePass for incremental growth because of putting Bethesda titles on Gamepass, which already doesn't produce much profit. Sony relies on selling each game separately for full-price. This makes recovery much easier, at least in the short term.

So, very different situations.

1)Lol no, you don't calculate the acquisitions in that way...a) the first thing you do is calculate the investment earnings(produced by the acquisited company post acquisition) compared to the annual interest obtained if the acquisition had not taken place and the money would have remained bank. b) The value of Bethesda on the market is unlikely to drop suddenly. If the games sell on the platforms for which it is developed, it will not drop even a cent.
2) is true ...but that doesn't mean basically nothing. the possibilities of economic maneuvers are completely different between Sony and ms. Sony is a relatively small company compared to ms. Ms earned more in a quarter than all playstation did in the entire ps4 generation, and when you have the support of the whole company these are the kinds of investments that make the difference between the two companies Sony couldn't afford it if not really, really risking a lot.
3)The cost of the acquisition for Microsoft is borne by the return of several benefits. a) do not run after third party exclusives which, as you said, would be more expensive than the deal itself if it was made by Sony. b) They make the platform and the brand more exciting and desirable for the user. c) supply gamepass d) support the Microsoft brand in pc gaming. e) make compete Xbox with ps on first party level f) money.
4) The Xbox division, as many believe otherwise, is profitable. The most profitable? no but that is another matter. Shareholders look to the future not to the immediate return on investment of this magnitude is a long-term one. that everyone in Ms supported and was aware of including the CEO.
5)When you will know if gamepass produces or not money give me a whistle. for now you are speculating (in my opinion very wrongly)
Most game willl be exclusives .mmo's and minor titles will go on ps too

 

[Aguero9320]

Or the meltdown if it's announced that not all are exclusive to Xbox (and PC), who knows

I mean, maybe. 0.001% chance IMO. Some of the people who, daily, hammer and mock them for not having exclusives are the ones saying they shouldn’t keep them exclusive.

They could release Halo and Forza Horizon on PlayStation and Switch too, but do they?

Microsoft bought Bethesda for one reason only to my eyes. The games have to be exclusive to Xbox platforms - and available everywhere else via XCloud/Gamepass. Want to play them on a different system? Sure. Here, download this app and subscribe.

If Microsoft has given up, and never has any hope of catching PlayStation, that’s the 0.001% chance they do something so stupid, but not seeing any evidence they think that. In fact, quite the opposite.

Personally, I’d much rather there were no exclusives at all, for any platform, and I could play everything on one system. I’d rather play Nintendo and Sony exclusives on my Xbox, or whatever the most powerful system of the day is. But that’s not the game we’re playing.

 

[quest]

you don’t see Netflix publishing their original shows on Disney+, hbo Max or amazon prime video, I guess that would bring some cash upfront from licensing deals and viewership would increase quite a lot for these shows, but goal is to deliver exclusive content and bring customers into their subscription by telling them you cannot access this content anywhere else. Netflix is on most of the devices, same as xCloud (goal is to have it on pc, android, iOS, mobiles and tablets, potentially TVs). Play station owners compared to overall market are small fraction, in addition, most will have mobile device they can access xCloud on Or smart Tv or pc that will run xCloud via native app or browser.

also people forget that this early in generation there isn’t too many ps5 owners out there, ms might publish some of Bethesda games on PS4 as user base is big, but next gen experience might be locked to Xbox, xCloud and pc.

That and timed exclusives sell like garbage on the second platform anyways. They are old games when they come out people have a bad taste in their mouth over waiting. Timed exclusive gets Microsoft almost no extra money but also prevents the sales of millions of series x consoles. Microsoft did not become a trillion dollar company being foolish. Zenimax was up for sale because it was not making money as a multiplatform publisher. Why would they continue that failed model and help Sony. If zenimax was printing money like mine craft i could buy that argument.

 

[LisaMariaMartin]

Not really. The two situations are very different -- hence the debate.

1) When Sony creates and sells an exclusive game, they only incur the development cost of the game. With Bethesda games, Xbox will be bearing the development cost + the $7.5B acquisition costs.
2) Keeping games off of Xbox is significantly cheaper for Sony. On the other hand, keeping games off of PlayStation is 200-300% more expensive more Xbox, in comparison.
3) We are talking specifically about Bethesda games (not existing XGS games, because this situation does not really apply to them). That's because the $7.5B purchase cost that MS paid is primarily because of how well Bethesda games sell on PlayStation. Without PS, recovering that cost will become 2-3 times tougher/spread out on a longer period for MS.
4) The PlayStation division is highly profitable and has always been (in 90% of the years). Investors wouldn't mind as much if a game does not sell 2 million more copies. That's not the case with the Xbox division.
5) Xbox would be putting those games already on GamePass for incremental growth because of putting Bethesda titles on Gamepass, which already doesn't produce much profit. Sony relies on selling each game separately for full-price. This makes recovery much easier, at least in the short term.

So, very different situations.

Nah, you just deluded yourself into thinking this is the right approach for MS. I get it, it would suck for you if they decided to take those games away but stop acting like you know more than other people. You're a clueless fanboy.

Game Pass is still in its infancy, it would make 0 sense to neuter it by making their games available on their main competitors platform.

I'm not saying the heavy hitters will be all exclusive, there is simply no way of knowing but it would be borderline stupid to release anything Playstation and I only see desperate Sony fanboys who can't accept the fact that xbox might have exclusives they care about arguing otherwise.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

People forget that GamePass games can also be purchased outside of the service for that same $60-70 as on Playstation. And Bethesda games sell better on PC than console, so it’s not as if they are cutting out their main cash cow by skipping Playstation.

This is also different because an exclusive Fallout or TES game would be massive, more so than any deal MS has done that I can remember. It could easily sway people to pick up an Xbox console to play them, minimizing the loss of the PS fan base even more.

 

[sinseers]

That is not how it works. Sony has never paid anything for Spiderman sales on other platforms. It is simply an opportunity cost for Sony. MS has paid real USD for Sony sales - and that is the majority of that profit - that is Heisenberg's point. Not impossible but highly unlikely that MS takes that multi billion USD cost on their quarterly earnings (if they would state '100% exclusive for Xbox' the balanced asset value for Bethesda/Zenimax would fail the impairment test and have to be written down by X%). My own opinion is that the comment the other day from MS about 'best' and 'first' should be seen in that light - timed exclusives, exclusive content for and most optimization for Xbox is a much more likely scenario than complete exclusivity - but who knows.

The "most optimization for Xbox" part is the one that I have been thinking about since this whole story broke. That is what any PS owner should really take into consideration with regards to any of the big BethSoft games possibly landing on PS. I think back to Fallout 3 and how that was handled.

 

[The_Mike]

The thing about the Bethesda deal is when you compare it to other big deals I think the hype has gotten out of hand, the games will be everywhere.

 

[prinz_valium]

It better be all new (not announced at different platforms yet) games will be Xbox console exclusives. Otherwise that is $7.5bn wasted.
Stop trying to be always the good guy. Makes no sense. People will bitch about Xbox and Microsoft anyways. So just embrace it.

If you want to play those games, you have to get into the Xbox ecosystem. That's already as user friendly as possible, as it's the by far cheapest.
Just need a phone and $15

 

[Elog]

They are also on PC(most likely Steam), where majority Bethesda's sales come from.

How would you know what impairment test they fail? You think Zenimax studios titles cost more to develop then existing first party studio titles like Playground Games/343i/Obsidian/Coalition? Except for Bethesda most Zenimax studios are no bigger than other Xbox first party studios and for Bethesda console sales are a small fraction of PC sales.
There are so many variables people ignore and then talk like they are part of Microsoft board of directors.

What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with the impairment test. The point is that they payed 7.5 bn USD for a revenue stream that to 50% or thereabout was based on future revenues from Playstation consoles. That means that their acquisition would have to be written down if they went all exclusive on Xbox since MS right now on their balance sheet have an asset valued at 7.5 bn USD.

 

[FrankWza]

you don’t see Netflix publishing their original shows on Disney+, hbo Max or amazon prime video

None of the zeni games are original to Microsoft.
They’re mostly long-standing franchises Except for Deathloop and Ghostwire but those are out on PS5 exclusively anyway.
you can buy the Irishman on bluray.

 

[wolffy71]

If Bethesda has invested significant money into getting games running on other platforms I could see them actually going multi platform. But after that, no way these games ever reach Sony.

 

[Arachnid]

Come oooooooon Evil Within 3!

 

[Heisenberg007]

Nah, you just deluded yourself into thinking this is the right approach for MS. I get it, it would suck for you if they decided to take those games away but stop acting like you know more than other people. You're a clueless fanboy.

Game Pass is still in its infancy, it would make 0 sense to neuter it by making their games available on their main competitors platform.

I'm not saying the heavy hitters will be all exclusive, there is simply no way of knowing but it would be borderline stupid to release anything Playstation and I only see desperate Sony fanboys who can't accept the fact that xbox might have exclusives they care about arguing otherwise.

Of the two of us, you are the one who seems to be 100% sure of what MS will do when even MS doesn't know what they will do.

My stance on this has always been: It could go either way. There is a possibility that MS decides to release some Bethesda games on PlayStation because of many business-related reasons.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I mean, maybe. 0.001% chance IMO. Some of the people who, daily, hammer and mock them for not having exclusives are the ones saying they shouldn’t keep them exclusive.

They could release Halo and Forza Horizon on PlayStation and Switch too, but do they?

Microsoft bought Bethesda for one reason only to my eyes. The games have to be exclusive to Xbox platforms - and available everywhere else via XCloud/Gamepass. Want to play them on a different system? Sure. Here, download this app and subscribe.

Yup, that's all my point is. There are people here who are just sure -- 100% -- that there is no way that MS releases Bethesda games on other platforms (PS and Nintendo). But my point is that it's a bit more complicated situation.

Personally, I’d much rather there were no exclusives at all, for any platform, and I could play everything on one system. I’d rather play Nintendo and Sony exclusives on my Xbox, or whatever the most powerful system of the day is. But that’s not the game we’re playing.

Same. And wouldn't that be an ideal gaming world!

 

[FrankWza]

Yup, that's all my point is. There are people here who are just sure -- 100% -- that there is no way that MS releases Bethesda games on other platforms (PS and Nintendo). But my point is that it's a bit more complicated situation.

I think it’s a mixture of fearing FoBoB and it almost being a necessity at this point. Just from a consumer confidence standpoint, they kind of have to make these games exclusives. I think, if given a choice, Xbox ecosystem gamers will live with the coming price hike to gold or gamepass or both if these games are exclusives. It will make for a softer landing.

 

[pasterpl]

None of the zeni games are original to Microsoft.
They’re mostly long-standing franchises Except for Deathloop and Ghostwire but those are out on PS5 exclusively anyway.
you can buy the Irishman on bluray.

look a lucifer, it was 3rd party and Netflix picked it up, and now(new seasons produced by Netflix) it is not available on any other platform even if that platform showed previous seasons

edit; also, when the deal is completed all of the zenimax old and new Ip will be own by ms, doesn’t matter if these are long standing multi platform franchises, ms will have a full right to make these exclusive, and it makes sense, that big following some of these games might have might jump into xbox ecosystem

 

[FrankWza]

look a lucifer, it was 3rd party and Netflix picked it up, and now(new seasons produced by Netflix) it is not available on any other platform even if that platform showed previous seasons

It was canceled by another network and Netflix bought it because everything was set in place and they constantly need content.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

The thing about the Bethesda deal is when you compare it to other big deals I think the hype has gotten out of hand, the games will be everywhere.

Saying it doesn't will it to be true.

 

[Umbasaborne]

Well, i mean they have to put out some games this year, because for xbox first party its looking....

 

[BigTnaples]

Hmmm.

 

[The_Mike]

What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with the impairment test. The point is that they payed 7.5 bn USD for a revenue stream that to 50% or thereabout was based on future revenues from Playstation consoles. That means that their acquisition would have to be written down if they went all exclusive on Xbox since MS right now on their balance sheet have an asset valued at 7.5 bn USD.

Really? We are back to stage 1,denial again?

If Microsoft bought bethesda to keep them going multi platform, then why would they have bought them to begin with?

If Sony bought Bethesda, would you have said that Sony needed Microsofts money?

Face it. To play elder Scrolls you have to buy an xbox or play on pc.

By your logic Microsoft should sell Halo Infinite on playstation as well to get the money back they invested.

Infinite has so far cost Microsoft 500 million dollars to make, and that was before they realised they made a shit show and turned back to the drawing board.

Halo Infinite Needs to be on playstation to get their revenue back, because there's more having a PlayStation than an Xbox.

Sounds stupid? So does your post, which is the exact same logic.

No one buys a studio for 7.5 billion if its not an investment.

Maybe you would be able to play it on game pass, problem is, Sony cries about game pass on their platform like Sony did in the first place about cross play.

And they provably never will allow it because its a competitor to their own ps now subscription.

The purchase of Bethesda wasn't only because of earning money, but making their Xbox brand more appealing.
If Microsoft made Bethesda third party, then we would have known that infinite was announced to PlayStation 5 as well.

7.5 billion is pocket change to Microsoft.

I have a strong feeling that Microsoft doesn't need money from people on Playstation.

Time will tell.

 

[pasterpl]

It was canceled by another network and Netflix bought it because everything was set in place and they constantly need content.

isn’t gamepass in the constant need of content? Netflix example is great, as similar to Netflix ms have to aim to get xCloud to almost all devices and keep steady flow of exclusive content to keep people subscribed, publishing games on other platforms would be counter productive (not mentioning that it would increase development cost)

 

[Bernkastel]

What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with the impairment test. The point is that they payed 7.5 bn USD for a revenue stream that to 50% or thereabout was based on future revenues from Playstation consoles. That means that their acquisition would have to be written down if they went all exclusive on Xbox since MS right now on their balance sheet have an asset valued at 7.5 bn USD.

Again you are pulling facts out of your ass. Their own platform(Xbox store, Game Pass etc.) is a much bigger revenue source than Zenimax studio output. If they can't increase the revenue of their own platform(by encouraging more people to use their services), then what was the point of paying 7 billion. If they wanted timed exclusives or Game Pass at lunch, it would cost way less than 7.5 billion. All platform holders lose revenue by not making their games multi platform, and they make way more by making people invest in their service to play those games.

 

[MaulerX]

Rand-al-Thor and Jez Corden (from Windows Central) seemed to agree with Grubb about this on their Xbox Two podcast yesterday. And even went on record with a prediction (fairly certain) that Starfield will in fact be exclusive (Xbox ecosystem - Console & PC). These guys are dialed in and don't usually make these type of predictions unless they're fairly confident on their sources.

Sure anything can still happen but it's looking like this is how it's going to play out.

 

[Elog]

I will stop here but some people here are not on top of financial economy. MS can of course take a 3-4 bn USD earnings hit - they can afford it. The question is whether they will do it or not - that is a sizeable sum of money. By playing with timed exclusives and limited xclusive content they will more or less achieve the same without having to take that kind of hit. That is the argument.

That is why I am on the side of thinking that they will do exactly what I wrote above and then plan for future exclusive Xbox titles. Do I know? Of course not but I would be surprised if they played the 100% exclusive argument right now. I am not in denial - just think that is unlikely.

 

[Jokerevo]

The meltdown over the reveal that they’re all exclusive to Xbox is going to be one for the ages...

But they won't be because they'll be on PC. My PC is already crushing the XsX which was DOA on release.

 

[Hendrick's]

But they won't be because they'll be on PC. My PC is already crushing the XsX which was DOA on release.

Microsoft are happy to have you buy games on their other platform.

 

[Yselacrey00]

I'm still convinced whatever titles were announced prior to the acquisition (Starfield, TES VI) are going to be multiplatform.
Anything announced after the fact are more likely to be Xbox console exclusive, imo.

Hope something substantial gets shown soon (preferably gameplay). I want to purchase a Series X, but Microsoft have to bring the goods with their 1st party lineup.

No fucking way. All games are going to be Xbox exclusive. Maybe they will release for other platforms a year or two later, but there's no way the games are going to be multiplat from launch. Microsoft won't even announced if they are planning to release it on other consoles b cause it would hurt xbox sales. Just like Sony is doing with their games releasing them for pc.

 

[recursive]

Prey and Dishonored boosted to 60 fps pls

Skyrim 60fps edition imo

 

[FranXico]

They could release Halo and Forza Horizon on PlayStation and Switch too, but do they?

Those franchises started out as first party exclusives, you won't see anyone complaining about that.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I expect that MS goal is for all Bethesda content to be exclusive to Xbox. They are banking on a deal like that would get people heavily invested in their Gamepass ecosystem. Could it work? Maybe, but MS has a LOT of ground to cover to make up for the loss of games not being on Sony's system. Xbox Series X and Series S just take off in sales and remain competitive with PS5.

Right now, ALL of the buzz is for PS5 and pretty much no talk of XSX. XSX has been far less available than PS5. PS5's frequently come in stock on Playstation Direct, while XSX's very rarely come in stock.

With that in mind, I am inclined to believe that MS best option would be to have Bethesda games available on Gamepass on Day 1 and stay exclusive for 6 months. After that 6 month period, sell them at full retail price on Nintendo and Sony's system.

To me that makes the most sense.

 

[cromofo]

There's still people holding out for Bethesda games on the PS?

 

[MicrosoftMediaPro]

Awesome

 

[supernova8]

If Microsoft is going to hold an event they better fucking show some gameplay (even if it has to be "cinematic gameplay").

Their last few shows have been absolute garbage. You can impress me with studio acquisitions to a extent before I come back with a "OK that's zippity-doo-dah but show me some gameplay".

If it's going to be some boring extended talk show where they wheel out 120 people all saying some variant of "we're super excited to be working with Microsoft/Bethesda" then please save us all and don't bother.

(Even better, let's see some bloody Hellblade 2)

 

[LordCBH]

Even though I’ve been severely disappointed by post-Skrim Bethesda thanks to flops and mediocre titles like Fallout 4 and Fallout 76, I STILL just wanna see some muthafuckin STARFIELD!

 

[Bogroll]

I don't care if the games do or don't go on Playstation, all I know is I've got a Xbox so I'm sorted. Bring some new games and the fps boost to all your old games if possible.

 

[Calverz]

Watching the event and neo gaf for another one....

 

[onesvenus]

By playing with timed exclusives and limited xclusive content they will more or less achieve the same without having to take that kind of hit. That is the argument.

First thing clear, I'm really bad at economy related things.
Having said that, if that was their goal, why buy the company instead of securing timed exclusived rights to the games they wanted instead? It would have been much cheaper.