For all the bragging about how PlayStation is destroying Xbox, how there’s nothing to play on Xbox, yada, yada, it makes no sense for Microsoft to put anything on PlayStation.
Future Doom, Quake, Elder Scrolls, Fallout, etc need to be Xbox/PC only.
Microsoft needs to give more reasons to choose Xbox over PlayStation, and putting their games on PlayStation, or supporting them with future upgrades doesn’t help sell Xboxes. Good will means nothing when you’re helping people who aren’t buying your hardware.
In reality I don’t expect Sony to update their PS4 games for PS6. At some point there’s going to be a cut off of support.
If we assume that PlayStation 5 is outselling Xbox 2:1, then the calculation is that it’s easier for Sony to ignore 1/3 of the high end market than for Xbox to ignore 2/3 of the market. Publishers take that into consideration when doing marketing and or exclusivity deals.
Look at the PS4 for example. You’d need to basically offset all of the money a game would be projected to make, and the negative PR hit, to forgo a PlayStation release and do an exclusivity deal with Xbox. Currently the PS5 is on a similar sales trajectory to the PS4. If you are a publisher, what deal makes the most sense?
Now you could argue that Xbox have a lot of money and it doesn’t matter - pay the money be damned. The issue is that not all Xbox gamers will buy those ‘deal’ games so it’s entirely possible they’d make a loss on each deal of that kind. So they’d make a loss on their hardware, potentially make a loss on including it in GamePass (some will increase subs and some won’t) and then make a loss on getting some games on the platform.
I’m quite interested in when Microsoft have their games releasing at a good rate of knots (3-4 big games a year, with smaller games supplementing the GamePass service). Games cost hundreds of million to make, and to an extent, and we don’t know how much as the data isn’t released, being included in GamePass eats into full-priced sales. Starfield has been in development for a decade or so and will have significant development costs assosiated, and every year COD has 3000 or so developers working on it. Hugely expensive games like that of course release physically and digitally as well, but I’m interested to know how much GamePass eats into that. If Xbox get a lot of subscribers then they’ll be able to offset most/all game development costs. If they can do that then they’ll be fine. That’s why I think getting devices out there that run GamePass is such a priority. It’s where the money will be for them.
However, the more successful GamePass is alongside a successful PlayStation business, the more money it’ll cost to get big third party games on the service or as timed exclusives. At that point the publishers will want to offset PlayStation userbase losses and not making as many $70 sales on Xbox as well.
It’s quite a fiddly calculation.
If I’m Microsoft, I’m putting my games on as many viable platforms as possible until GamePass reaches critical mass and the cost can be significantly increased.
If I’m Sony or someone like Take 2 then I’m going to make my hundreds of million/billions on a game before I put it in a sub service. That way they get their huge payday at the start and then the royalties/sub fees of the subscription subscribers. Much less risk overall. Their issue is whether they are converting PS+ essential users into PS+ extra users. We don’t have those numbers and they’ve been quiet.
If I’m a 3rd party publisher I’m gonna align myself with the platform that best allows me to do that.
when it could sell more on playstation than pc and xbox
both companies pay for exclusive content, it's business one isn't more goodwill than the other no idea why your making one out to be honorable and a victim.
