Support NeoGAF

[MacReady13]

I think the apt question would have been you asking how MS purchase of Bethesda made gaming better for their own consumers.

Because your question is unrelated to what he said.

It's funny how many on here will wait for a game to come to game pass to play it but when it's on PS5 they assume we all purchase the game on release day for full retail and NOT wait for sales!

 

[DForce]

Morrowind was an Elder Scrolls title and it wasn't on PlayStation. Sony did just fine without it. I have yet to see any product a listing proving any of these future titles were going to be on PlayStation in the first place. Xbox gamers were sure Final Fantasy 7R and Street Fighter 5 would hit Xbox and low and behold they didn't.

The only difference is that Sony doesn't own those properties and MS DOES own Elder Scrolls and Fallout. Still these games are available for any PlayStation gamer with a capable PC and those titles will most likely also be streamable to other devices as well. You don't even need an Xbox at all.

Playstation gamers were sure Starfield, Elder Scrolls, and Fallout would hit PlayStation but that doesn't appear to be the case.

You're not making any sense here, dude. You're just trying to come up with anything not to make MS look bad. LOL.

 

[mckmas8808]

So they’re lying to… be honest?

Now I’m way more confused

LOL!!!! No, I was saying "They are both lying, to be honest with you".

 

[ResilientBanana]

The reason COD is such a money maker is because it's on all platforms. Microsoft wants to keep that money coming, they will not make it exclusive, however, you better believe that shit will be on Gamepass.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't think making things better for PlayStation gamers is a big concern of MS nor should it be.

Their main concern is making money and doing that by making things better for their paying customers which they certainly did. Xbox and PC gamers on Game Pass will now get all those games at no additional charge on Day 1 and Sony will never again be able to block those games nor their additional content and perks from Xbox gamers or Game Pass.

The same goes for PlayStation when they do things that are in the best interest of Playstation gamers. I'm confused as to why some are treating one company as angels and the other are devils.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The same goes for PlayStation when they do things that are in the best interest of Playstation gamers. I'm confused as to why some are treating one company as angels and the other are devils.

Are you tho?

 

[DarkMage619]

Playstation gamers were sure Starfield, Elder Scrolls, and Fallout would hit PlayStation but that doesn't appear to be the case.

You're not making any sense here, dude. You're just trying to come up with anything not to make MS look bad. LOL.

Yup and like I said Xbox gamers expected Street Fighter and Final Fantasy. It's pretty normal to expect 3rd party titles to hit all platforms it's weird to expect 1st party titles to be multiplatform. MS doesn't look bad because they didn't do anything wrong. Providing their customers with content is what a games business is supposed to do.

It's weird to be upset with MS for providing content for their customers but being more accepting of Sony blocking content on other platforms. One of life's mysteries I suppose.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think the next couple of them will still be.

If they want to start bringing CoD exclusive, they'll probably experiment by making an Xbox exclusive campaign mode and keep the MP running on all platforms to test the waters or something if I were to take a guess.



The point of the discussion is availability at launch, "borrowing from a friend" and "waiting for a sale" are complete tangents lol.



It's objective in the sense that things being under MS publishing are available on multiple avenues for players. PC (Steam, MS Store, Game Pass) Console, Mobile/Cloud.

Comparatively when Sony moneyhats something, it's only available on their console for a duration and may or may not get a release on other platforms/PC year(s) later.

It's only a tangent because you are moving the goalpost. It's stupid to contain this whole conversation to day-one only purchases. Please you guys keep talking about the PC as if that matters to people without a gaming PC. Why do I care about what MS puts on PC, if I or millions of other people don't have a gaming PC?

 

[CatLady]

The same goes for PlayStation when they do things that are in the best interest of Playstation gamers. I'm confused as to why some are treating one company as angels and the other are devils.

How does making big 3rd party games exclusive when they were already coming to PlayStation benefit PlayStation gamers?

 

[mckmas8808]

If I were Microsoft I’d delay CoD on PlayStation one month, for every game they blocked from Game Pass.

You want to block games? Timed exclusivity for Diablo 4, CoD, Crash Bandicoot, etc would just get longer.

Microsoft holds all the cards. Sony has nothing.

They already do this today with their Console Launch Exclusive games that they've moneyhatted for. So why are you acting as if they need to "REACT" to what Sony does?

 

[CaptainSlayAHo]

This is insane-level thinking. Fanboys done gone crazy here.

Man hates Microsoft so much he thinks it's insane that someone is happy Microsoft is buying Activision instead of Facebook lmao

Then has the audacity to call THEM a fanboy

Take a breathe dude, Jesus

 

[DForce]

Yup and like I said Xbox gamers expected Street Fighter and Final Fantasy. It's pretty normal to expect 3rd party titles to hit all platforms it's weird to expect 1st party titles to be multiplatform. MS doesn't look bad because they didn't do anything wrong. Providing their customers with content is what a games business is supposed to do.

Sony didn't do anything wrong.

Microsoft bought studios to keep some games exclusive. It's worse than third-party deals. Period. No amount of spinning will change that.

 

[adamsapple]

It's only a tangent because you are moving the goalpost. It's stupid to contain this whole conversation to day-one only purchases. Please you guys keep talking about the PC as if that matters to people without a gaming PC. Why do I care about what MS puts on PC, if I or millions of other people don't have a gaming PC?

But the biggest point of contention from a lot of people is availability of call of duty on game pass day 1. Day 1 is the key.

You can get numerous games for rentals at $15 a month via game fly as well, but that's not what we're talking about is it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

How does making big 3rd party games exclusive when they were already coming to PlayStation benefit PlayStation gamers?

How does buying one of the largest 3rd party publishers in the world (Zenimax/Bethesda) that were already coming to Xbox and PC, benefit those gamers by keeping them off PS?

 

[phil_t98]

Sony didn't do anything wrong.

Microsoft bought studios to keep some games exclusive. It's worse than third-party deals. Period. No amount of spinning will change that.

and Sony does the same buys out studios to make sure games are exclusive. Sony has built the playstation brand by literally making sure they bought exclusivity on games from the beginning

 

[DForce]

and Sony does the same buys out studios to make sure games are exclusive. Sony has built the playstation brand by literally making sure they bought exclusivity on games from the beginning

I never said they didn't.

Read the conversation.

 

[CaptainSlayAHo]

How does buying one of the largest 3rd party publishers in the world (Zenimax/Bethesda) that were already coming to Xbox and PC, benefit those gamers by keeping them off PS?

Sony was negotiating exclusivity for star field.

Now it comes to game pass day one.

Is this a real question?

EDIT: missed the end of the question, it doesn't, but the purchase as a whole does. Unequivocally

 

[DeepEnigma]

Sony was negotiating exclusivity for star field.

Now it comes to game pass day one.

Is this a real question?

There was no proof of this, only social media rumors. And that's one game (that was probably timed as well)... not their entire portfolio of studios. MS could have negotiated the same things like they have been doing all along.

But keep moving goalposts as if they're not both guilty of same stank shit.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

There was no proof of this, only social media rumors. And that's one game (that was probably timed as well)... not their entire portfolio of studios.

But keep moving goalposts as if they're not both guilty of same stank shit.

I can tell ya Ybarra told me Bethesda was for sale for quite awhile and starting asking price from Todd was 20B and Sony was in the mix

 

[CatLady]

How does buying one of the largest 3rd party publishers in the world (Zenimax/Bethesda) that were already coming to Xbox and PC, benefit those gamers by keeping them off PS?

I already stated that, but I'll reiterate. It gives Xbox gamers those games on Game Pass Day1. It prevents Sony from keeping DLC off Xbox/PC for up to a year. It prevents Sony from keeping the games themselves off Xbox/PC for up to a year or even more.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I can tell ya Ybarra told me Bethesda was for sale for quite awhile and starting asking price from Todd was 20B and Sony was in the mix

Yep, they all do it. Which has been my stance the entire time in this thread and many others like it.

I already stated that, but I'll reiterate. It gives Xbox gamers those games on Game Pass Day1. It prevents Sony from keeping DLC off Xbox/PC for up to a year. It prevents Sony from keeping the games themselves off Xbox/PC for up to a year or even more.

So we are in agreement all this arguing pro and con is based on fanatical selfish preferences, yes?

 

[CaptainSlayAHo]

There was no proof of this, only social media rumors. And that's one game (that was probably timed as well)... not their entire portfolio of studios. MS could have negotiated the same things like they have been doing all along.

But keep moving goalposts as if they're not both guilty of same stank shit.

I actually edited my post about keeping it off playstation. It doesn't benefit xbox.

But them owning Bethesda certainly does. Day one game pass across the board, along with all the classics

Enjoy the moneyhatted games still costing 70 dollars I guess.

If they came to ps+ you'd have an excellent point. At the moment, no

EDIT: btw moneyhatted 3rd party xbox games come day one to gamepass as well, good shit, wipe the tears with your 70 dollars before throwing it towards sony

 

[mckmas8808]

Could you imagine if MS had taken that 70B and just bought timed exclusivity on a pile of AAA games coming soon?

We saw the uproar from just Rise of the Tomb Raider, the internet would have gone ablaze, probably could have got more short term impact that way too, as a side effect the long term benefits probably wouldn't have had the same upside this deal does.

I wish they had, instead of buying those games forever. This deal has zero upside for me and millions of gamers at all.

Are you tho?

A little. I'd expect at least 1% of decency and honesty. Just nothing but lying and hypocrisy from the Xbox guys here. I can admit that both sides have moneyhatted games. That's the game. It's business. I understand why MS is purchases multiple publishers (which house over 30 developer gaming companies). They want to catch up and it makes business sense. But it's crazy to act like MS is doing all this for the goodness of there hearts.

When Sony said "4 the Players", I knew that was a marketing tagline. I wasn't confused and tricked. But these guys.......

Man hates Microsoft so much he thinks it's insane that someone is happy Microsoft is buying Activision instead of Facebook lmao

Then has the audacity to call THEM a fanboy

Take a breathe dude, Jesus

It's funny that you guys are soooo in love with MS buying Activision and Bethesda, but lose your minds that FFVII Remake is a timed exclusive. I'm just requesting that you guys keep the same energy, considering both sides have spent money to keep games away from "the other team".

But the biggest point of contention from a lot of people is availability of call of duty on game pass day 1. Day 1 is the key.

You can get numerous games for rentals at $15 a month via game fly as well, but that's not what we're talking about is it.

The debate should simply never be framed "ONLY" around what happens on Day One. I get that it benefits the Xbox fan crowd due to GamePass now. But that's not how all gamers move. This $70 per game vs. "free" on GamePass narrative is getting out of control.

 

[mckmas8808]

I can tell ya Ybarra told me Bethesda was for sale for quite awhile and starting asking price from Todd was 20B and Sony was in the mix

Bethesda's starting price was $20 Billion and the ended up selling for $8 Billion? I wonder what went wrong. How'd they overvalue themselves by so much? What was Todd smoking? LOL!

 

[Salty Popsicle]

How does buying one of the largest 3rd party publishers in the world (Zenimax/Bethesda) that were already coming to Xbox and PC, benefit those gamers by keeping them off PS?

If MS makes all or most Blizzard/Activision games available for GamePass going forward, it most definitely benefits me and other Xbox/PC gamers.

 

[CaptainSlayAHo]

I wish they had, instead of buying those games forever. This deal has zero upside for me and millions of gamers at all.

Moneyhatted Sony games have literally no upside for every gamer, and pc/Xbox in particular

Moneyhatted Xbox games have TREMENDOUS upside for every game pass user on Xbox, pc, mobile, and television

It's funny that you guys are soooo in love with MS buying Activision and Bethesda, but lose your minds that FFVII Remake is a timed exclusive. I'm just requesting that you guys keep the same energy, considering both sides have spent money to keep games away from "the other team".

Activision and Bethesda future and past games are now/will be on game pass

Ff7r came to ps+ two years later (glad it did, I had a blast), and still hasn't come to xbox

It's almost like the two aren't the same

 

[Ozriel]

Do you think publishers just dump content onto the market as soon as they possibly can? Or do you think there's a strong element of strategy and planning involved in order to produce share-holder friendly results on an annual and quarterly basis?

If you accept the latter to be true, what do you think happens when any one party has control over so many significant properties that it becomes difficult to manage smoothly? And what do you think happens to serial under-performers under corporate ownership?

I certainly wouldn't call Activision or Zenimax 'serial underperformers'.
Xbox approach is to retain the acquired studio structure while providing more resources and support to remove blockers.

MS have only gotten to this point by burning billions of dollars in losses in order to stay in the game. Their track record is not good, which is why, two-decades-in, they are still spending huge in order to acquire IP and not expanding out from their home-grown successes.

Source on the 'billions of dollars in losses'?
Midway through last gen, they only had a few first party studios. Of course they'd have to spend big to beef up their first party studios to support their renewed focus on gaming. You say this as if it's somehow a bad thing to invest in expansion.

What it is in fact is a product of corporate ambition and protectionism funded by immense wealth generated outside of gaming.

You're joking if you don't know this describes every console maker. Including Sony.

Seriously. Why would you want a corporation with a track record like that to control all these huge, storied IP's?

...Because they're taking a semi-hands off approach, they'll fund these studios very well and the games from these IPs will show up on the excellent value subscription service they've set up?

You need to understand that what's being transacted aren't "games". It's purely IP's and assets. Which means that to the buyer, they can't really lose too much even if they run their new acquisition into the ground. Because they'll always own the IP and assets even when the staff and studio they purchased is long gone and scattered to the winds.

Nah, this is completely wrong. the talent is a huge part of the acquisition. And pre-purchase, there's always a game release forecast to run the economics. The games and the talent are pretty important. Doubly so in Microsoft's case, since they need a constant cadence of game releases for Gamepass. There's a reason why nearly every Xbox studio is hiring and expanding.

 

[DeepEnigma]

If MS makes all or most Blizzard/Activision games available for GamePass going forward, it most definitely benefits me and other Xbox/PC gamers.

But they could have still done that and kept the 3rd party games 3rd party like they claim they will with Activision. And like Sony claims it will do with Bungie.

Moneyhatted Sony games have literally no upside for every gamer, and pc/Xbox in particular

Moneyhatted Xbox games have TREMENDOUS upside for every game pass user on Xbox, pc, mobile, and television

What a way to word this

 

[CatLady]

Yep, they all do it. Which has been my stance the entire time in this thread and many others like it.


So we are in agreement all this arguing pro and con is based on fanatical selfish preferences, yes?

Oh, I'm willing to admit that I appreciate the moves Xbox has done to keep the games I want to play on Xbox and even making them part of Game Pass. I wish they would have bought Bethesda sooner so we wouldn't have had been locked out of Deathloop and Ghostwire and could have played those games Day 1 on Game Pass too.

Now can you please answer my question:

How does making big 3rd party games exclusive when they were already coming to PlayStation benefit PlayStation gamers?

 

[Kagey K]

I wish they had, instead of buying those games forever. This deal has zero upside for me and millions of gamers at all.

The Sony deals have no upside for me so.

 

[CaptainSlayAHo]

Bethesda's starting price was $20 Billion and the ended up selling for $8 Billion? I wonder what went wrong. How'd they overvalue themselves by so much? What was Todd smoking? LOL!

That is... A wild over-valuation lmao

To be fair I thought 8 seemed extremely cheap at the time, bizarre either way

 

[93xfan]

Just joking. Just thought it was funny how it was all worded, but I understood what you meant

 

[DeepEnigma]

Now can you please answer my question:

They don't directly. It's a benefit to the company, both companies when they make deals. I have been on that side of the fence this entire thread and many of them prior. I have been saying since day zero of this topic that this is shit they both do, and neither one are saints. Only fanatics waving their banners of consumer lunacy have been arguing otherwise.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

But they could have still done that and kept the 3rd party games 3rd party like they claim they will with Activision. And like Sony claims it will do with Bungie.

Activision has been a mismanaged and creatively bankrupt workplace for many years. They have been living off the names of their established brands for well over a decade. Microsoft, although not having a stellar track-record themselves of always managing their IP in the best manner, at least offer a change-up that the staff and creative minds at Activision/Blizzard mostly seem to embrace.

 

[CaptainSlayAHo]

What a way to word this

How am I wrong?

Moneyhatted Microsoft games= day one game pass for Xbox/Microsoft/mobile/TV, or still 60 dollars

Moneyhatted Sony games= still 70 dollars for Sony users, and only on playstation

The two truly are the same

 

[DeepEnigma]

Activision has been a mismanaged and creatively bankrupt workplace for many years. They have been living off the names of their established brands for well over a decade. Microsoft, although not having a stellar track-record themselves of always managing their IP in the best manner, at least offer a change-up that the staff and creative minds at Activision/Blizzard mostly seem to embrace.

That... that has nothing to do with my statement.

How am I wrong?

Moneyhatted Microsoft games= day one game pass for Xbox/Microsoft/mobile/TV, or still 60 dollars

Moneyhatted Sony games= still 70 dollars for Sony users, and only on playstation

The two truly are the same

You used one context for one, and not the other.

Moneyhatting from both, has no upside for the platforms their held off of. End of.

 

[mckmas8808]

Moneyhatted Sony games have literally no upside for every gamer, and pc/Xbox in particular

Moneyhatted Xbox games have TREMENDOUS upside for every game pass user on Xbox, pc, mobile, and television


Activision and Bethesda future and past games are now/will be on game pass

Ff7r came to ps+ two years later (glad it did, I had a blast), and still hasn't come to xbox

It's almost like the two aren't the same

Microsoft could pay to get every one of those same games on GamePass, without buying the Publisher outright. Why are you all acting as if MS had to spend $80 Billion to get a bunch of games on GamePass?

 

[Salty Popsicle]

That... that has nothing to do with my statement.

In other words, giving Activsion/Blizzard studios new overarching leadership and direction is a good thing for the industry, even if it means some corner of the market (PlayStation owners), may get shafted. We are already hearing murmurs about COD no longer being an yearly franchise going forward and that Microsoft would allow some COD studios to branch out and create new IPs. Those are good things.

 

[CaptainSlayAHo]

You used one context for one, and not the other.

Moneyhatting from both, has no upside for the platforms their held off of. End of.

OK, if you want to use context

Platforms held off of Microsoft moneyhatting: playstation, occasionally switch

Platforms held off by Sony moneyhatting: Xbox, pc, mobile, television, always switch

Truly one and the same

 

[DeepEnigma]

OK, if you want to use context

Platforms held off of Microsoft moneyhatting: playstation, occasionally switch

Platforms held off by Sony moneyhatting: Xbox, pc, mobile, television, always switch

Truly one and the same

Yes, they are one in the same. Deals. Deals made to keep off of direct competition.

And I am pretty positive all of Sony 3rd party deals late last gen and this gen have had PC versions.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

Microsoft could pay to get every one of those same games on GamePass, without buying the Publisher outright. Why are you all acting as if MS had to spend $80 Billion to get a bunch of games on GamePass?

Owning the publisher gives them complete control over the output and direction that all these studios take. Otherwise things like Scalebound happen where the publisher takes all the money and makes no tenable product.

 

[mckmas8808]

How am I wrong?

Moneyhatted Microsoft games= day one game pass for Xbox/Microsoft/mobile/TV, or still 60 dollars

Moneyhatted Sony games= still 70 dollars for Sony users, and only on playstation

The two truly are the same

Whatever happened to all those arguments that Xbox gamers made that said GamePass subscribers would still keep buying games by the boatload? It sure seems like yall are pushing the message that GamePass subscribers won't be purchasing many games in any given year.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Whatever happened to all those arguments that Xbox gamers made that said GamePass subscribers would still keep buying games by the boatload? It sure seems like yall are pushing the message that GamePass subscribers won't be purchasing many games in any given year.

A new narrative has been downloaded.

 

[mckmas8808]

Owning the publisher gives them complete control over the output and direction that all these studios take. Otherwise things like Scalebound happen where the publisher takes all the money and makes no tenable product.

Exactly! This means they've spent money to keep dozens of games off of their competitor's platforms. This is 100% worse than what the OP and MS are suggesting here (that Sony paid to keep games off of GamePass, but not Xbox in general).

 

[CaptainSlayAHo]

And I am pretty positive all of Sony 3rd party deals late last gen and this gen have had PC versions.

Pretty sure ff16 isn't, since ff7r2 already announced it isn't

Until after exclusivity anyways, luckily for pc owners Microsoft shares day one

 

[Salty Popsicle]

Exactly! This means they've spent money to keep dozens of games off of their competitor's platforms. This is 100% worse than what the OP and MS are suggesting here (that Sony paid to keep games off of GamePass, but not Xbox in general).

Owning a studio gives you the right to do that. I don't see the issue here.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Pretty sure ff16 isn't, since ff7r2 already announced it isn't

Until after exclusivity anyways, luckily for pc owners Microsoft shares day one

It will be on the PC, since the footage said it was "captured on a PC"

Just as 7R is, and just as 15, etc..

 

[mckmas8808]

One has to wonder how much MS offered to get RE:VIII Village on GamePass Day One. Especially since Capcom chose to go with the simple Playstation marketing deal money instead. One has to wonder was it "JUST" about the money......or was it about something else?....

 

[Salty Popsicle]

Whatever happened to all those arguments that Xbox gamers made that said GamePass subscribers would still keep buying games by the boatload? It sure seems like yall are pushing the message that GamePass subscribers won't be purchasing many games in any given year.

I prefer this approach over the Sony approach where game sequels like TLoU2 are released with less modes (no factions) than the original only to be piece-mealed at some later date for more money.

 

[CaptainSlayAHo]

Whatever happened to all those arguments that Xbox gamers made that said GamePass subscribers would still keep buying games by the boatload? It sure seems like yall are pushing the message that GamePass subscribers won't be purchasing many games in any given year.

Others make the argument that it's cheaper with game pass (literally true)

Personally only argument I've made is that it's 60 on Xbox and 70 on PS5 for moneyhatted options (also true)

That being said the only game I can think of that I've purchased the past few years is cyberpunk....

Between game pass and ps+ I don't see that changing anytime soon for me so I can't agree with their argument, the two services are literally preventing me from buying games, though I'm not sure how that's relevant