Support NeoGAF

[THE DUCK]

How many big third party publishers did Sony buy?

I can't believe the sheer amount of hypocrisy at display in this thread. Every single person who cried about "anti consumer Sony" for years and threw a tantrum at exclusive Spiderman DLC for a shitty GaaS game now thinks that permanently taking away popular third party franchises from platforms is somehow "pro consumer".

I count 13 studios over the years......including naughty dog and insomniac.

I've never said anything one way or the other about pro consumer.

 

[Team Andromeda]

How many big third party publishers did Sony buy?

I can't believe the sheer amount of hypocrisy at display in this thread. Every single person who cried about "anti consumer Sony" for years and threw a tantrum at exclusive Spiderman DLC for a shitty GaaS game now thinks that permanently taking away popular third party franchises from platforms is somehow "pro consumer".

SONY fans are just upset that SONY didn't splash the cash buy up a developer and publisher, you know like SONY used too, like with Psygnosis back in the day. The same SONY fans who also had no issues with SONY buying exclusive consoles rights to the likes of Tomb Raider... How times change

Sony fans got none else to blame but themself's. You lot continued to call out Microsoft/Xbox for lacking In-House Studios; offering nothing other than Gears, Halo and Forza. Yes, I could imagine it was fun while it lasted Well, those days are over.
Thank you so much to the SONY fans on here and Resetera. You've made no only MS make a powerful console, you've turned Xbox into a development studio powerhouse


Thank you so much PlayStation fans, thank you....

 

[LisaMariaMartin]

as expected, EU approved the deal on friday. explains why one of the largest investors sold their shares.

Competition case search

Searches for published decisions can be carried out under policy area, case number, title and date.

ec.europa.eu

 

[cromofo]

Well done to MS. ZeniMax were looking to sell and honestly MS is the perfect fit when you look at other options.

 

[Starfield]

It's done

Competition case search

Searches for published decisions can be carried out under policy area, case number, title and date.

ec.europa.eu

Zenimax now officially owned by Microsoft (US and EU)

(It means its no longer listed under open mergers, case closed)

 

[Mr.ODST]

Think will all this talk people forget Bethesda had a really strong relationship with Xbox thats why it was a shock when Deathloop and Ghostwire was announced as a timed PS5 exclusive, the playstation versions of Bethesda games were always the worst ones (especially in Elder Scrolls case), cant wait to see what comes from all the Zenimax studios!

 

[JokerMM]

it's kind of crazy as fuck to think now MS owns Doom, The elder scrolls, and fallout

 

[Starfield]

it's kind of crazy as fuck to think now MS owns Doom, The elder scrolls, and fallout

and Starfield

and Wolfenstein

and Dishonored

and and and

 

[Bojanglez]

SONY fans are just upset that SONY didn't splash the cash buy up a developer and publisher, you know like SONY used too, like with Psygnosis back in the day. The same SONY fans who also had no issues with SONY buying exclusive consoles rights to the likes of Tomb Raider... How times change

Sony fans got none else to blame but themself's. You lot continued to call out Microsoft/Xbox for lacking In-House Studios; offering nothing other than Gears, Halo and Forza. Yes, I could imagine it was fun while it lasted Well, those days are over.
Thank you so much to the SONY fans on here and Resetera. You've made no only MS make a powerful console, you've turned Xbox into a development studio powerhouse


Thank you so much PlayStation fans, thank you....

This is a very strange take. I think you are vastly overstating the power of Sony fans on Resetera.

I get the general sentiment though, that MS had fallen so far behind in first party development, perceived competence of their management and products that they had to make some moves. People (many of which were a Xbox fans too) rightly called them out. Generally good competition is good for all consumers, I hope MS is a good custodian of the IP and studios they have bought, I think it is a good fit and look forward to playing them wherever they are released.

All the console wars side of this is bullshit, in 10 years time although Sony, MS and Nintendo will possibly still make hardware, I expect most games will be accessible on most devices. The important thing is that studios are well funded and competently managed, so we get a regular supply of quality content.

 

[lame gag1990]

Microsoft should definitely keep future games exclusive on Xbox. Whether it be Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Doom whatever. It's their property now and they should give people a reason to buy an Xbox.

 

[MonarchJT]

I think it would be less a nice guy move and more like weighing the pros and cons of making established franchises exclusive. Will it be more beneficial to try and leverage exclusives to sell more consoles or just use the existing franchises to make the most money from them by selling them on the same platforms they've been available on? Which benefits Microsoft more in the long run? Which route is the most likely to show returns faster? What if Microsoft makes them exclusive and nothing really changes? These are all questions that they've likely been debating since they pulled the trigger on buying ZeniMax. There was already clearly a disconnect at the upper levels of Microsoft on what the plan was for this acquisition. One head implying the exclusives would start rolling and another saying they think it's a better idea to essentially treat this like Mojang.

It's the result of Microsoft not being in a controlling position in the console space. Their competitors have too much market share to ignore. If Microsoft was dominating, the call would be much easier to make. Don't bother making these games for other platforms. They'd make enough selling on just their console and PC. But this is a $7.5 billion price tag just to purchase them, your last console got outsold by probably 2.5-to-1 by its main competitor, and the other already blew by its numbers with 40 fewer months on the market. In that position what do you really do?

aaaah that's what it was in the end. The urban legend that sees Microsoft who can't afford to keep Bethesda exclusive to its platform. Now I wonder, in your opinion why Microsoft has finally unified its two platforms? Maybe maybe (just my guess) to finally make up for the lack of possible userbase compared to the competition in the world of consoles? No, because you see I made two calculations and this generation, unless Sony prolong it by a few years because of this limp start because of the covid, I don't think it will far exceed (at best) the Ps4 numbers, and what would we have then? 115/120 millions at best. Now basically you are telling me that Microsoft cannot leave anything on the table because it is not in a position of control and not having a noteworthy useebase it would be almost c forced (for his own good) to release titles on the Sony platform. But always doing two calculations (and it's not the first time we do them). If the two consoles XSX and XSS ONLY sold the same as during the horrible XBO generation we would have something like 50 millions of users. But this time we should add to these all those of the Windows 10 PC platform that will now see the release of all the Ms games on day One and we have seen from the steam chart how much well they went with Halo collection, Flight sim, Grounded and above all Sea of thieves. Now dear friend, you will understand for yourself that Steam alone sees 120 million users every month and this excluding those who use (crazy I know) the Microsoft store and gamepass. At the end we can add as icing on the cake a few handfuls of millions, even just two so for fun that could come from xcloud. Concluding as you will have understood we would have in the WORST OF THE HYPOTHESIS (I repeat taking as the case the horrible sales of the Xbox One and we know that the xsx|s will do more) something like 170/180 million users. Basically a useebase that Ps5 almost 100% will never see over the course of the generation (or is there anyone here who thinks the ps5 will sell 180m of units?) . What's even better is that 120 of these have already been there since the launch of the consoles! while for Sony, for example, that figure of 115/120 million is taken only at the end of the generation. Basically understanding all this whenever we hear "Microsoft can't ...." "Sony has too many users" "The Xbox console doesn't sell enough they need Sony users" They are chatter that have not taken into account what Microsoft has done in recent dying years of the Xbox One preparing precisely for this gen. In fact you know what? it is just the opposite, probably it is Sony that on the contrary cannot afford to have only the useebase of the console and that is why it is preparing to launch its games at even on pc.

ps. this is not to say that Microsoft will never release any multi-platform games. They will do it (eso or fallout76 as example). But the notion that they are forced because of the narrow user base is simply false.

 

[Varteras]

What do you really do?
Well, you can start by not sharing one of the few proper advantages you have with the competition.


I won’t really be affected by any exclusivity deal no matter where they happen, I’m mostly a PC gamer but within a few years I’ll be everywhere as always.

So to be honest I’m just debating here, I’m trying to think what could be done to make people care more about Xbox. And I just don’t see how they can change anything without essentially forcing people there. It sounds brutal but why swap to play somewhere else if you can keep playing on what you already have?

Xbox is already a great platform, has been great since the start, the majority of the games has been there, games has for the most part performed well.

But Sony always had more, better and more important exclusives. That’s really it.

So I’d say this, for Xbox to grow it simply needs more, better and more important exclusives. It wouldn’t be fixed by Bethesda’s games alone but it would be a start.

Bethesda games as multiplats would earn them more money but it would keep the Xbox as a platform at status quo. Which essentially means that Xbox would shrink compared to Playstation since Sony is far more aggressive and is likely going to grow this gen just like previous gen.

I agree with you. I suppose the decision ultimately depends on what Microsoft is happy with. Either making as much money as possible in their current situation or trying to redraw the lines and give Xbox more market share.

 

[Varteras]

aaaah that's what it was in the end. The urban legend that sees Microsoft who can't afford to keep Bethesda exclusive to its platform. Now I wonder, in your opinion why Microsoft has finally unified its two platforms? Maybe maybe (just my guess) to finally make up for the lack of possible userbase compared to the competition in the world of consoles? No, because you see I made two calculations and this generation, unless Sony prolong it by a few years because of this limp start because of the covid, I don't think it will far exceed (at best) the Ps4 numbers, and what would we have then? 115/120 millions at best. Now basically you are telling me that Microsoft cannot leave anything on the table because it is not in a position of control and not having a noteworthy useebase it would be almost c forced (for his own good) to release titles on the Sony platform. But always doing two calculations (and it's not the first time we do them). If the two consoles XSX and XSS ONLY sold the same as during the horrible XBO generation we would have something like 50 millions of users. But this time we should add to these all those of the Windows 10 PC platform that will now see the release of all the Ms games on day One and we have seen from the steam chart how much well they went with Halo collection, Flight sim, Grounded and above all Sea of thieves. Now dear friend, you will understand for yourself that Steam alone sees 120 million users every month and this excluding those who use (crazy I know) the Microsoft store and gamepass. At the end we can add as icing on the cake a few handfuls of millions, even just two so for fun that could come from xcloud. Concluding as you will have understood we would have in the WORST OF THE HYPOTHESIS (I repeat taking as the case the horrible sales of the Xbox One and we know that the xsx|s will do more) something like 170/180 million users. Basically a useebase that Ps5 almost 100% will never see over the course of the generation (or is there anyone here who thinks the ps5 will sell 180m of units?) . What's even better is that 120 of these have already been there since the launch of the consoles! while for Sony, for example, that figure of 115/120 million is taken only at the end of the generation. Basically understanding all this whenever we hear "Microsoft can't ...." "Sony has too many users" "The Xbox console doesn't sell enough they need Sony users" They are chatter that have not taken into account what Microsoft has done in recent dying years of the Xbox One preparing precisely for this gen. In fact you know what? it is just the opposite, probably it is Sony that on the contrary cannot afford to have only the useebase of the console and that is why it is preparing to launch its games at even on pc.

ps. this is not to say that Microsoft will never release any multi-platform games. They will do it (eso or fallout76 as example). But the notion that they are forced because of the narrow user base is simply false.

I'm asking questions. What is Microsoft thinking with this? What angles are they looking at? Are they thinking it better to take the Minecraft approach and just make as much money as possible on the IPs they bought or do they try to expand Xbox's footprint? One will make them money for sure and the other is a gamble with a potentially bigger payout in the long run. You seem to be taking this conversation a little too personally.

 

[martino]

I'm asking questions. What is Microsoft thinking with this? What angles are they looking at? Are they thinking it better to take the Minecraft approach and just make as much money as possible on the IPs they bought or do they try to expand Xbox's footprint? One will make them money for sure and the other is a gamble with a potentially bigger payout in the long run. You seem to be taking this conversation a little too personally.

the world is not binary and it costs them nothing to try both, weight the results and adjust in accord to them.

 

[abacab driver]

and Starfield

and Wolfenstein

and Dishonored

and and and

..and Prey and The Evil Within and Indiana Jones and Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo and any other new IP's from all these teams..

 

[Team Andromeda]

This is a very strange take. I think you are vastly overstating the power of Sony fans on Resetera.

I get the general sentiment though, that MS had fallen so far behind in first party development, perceived competence of their management and products that they had to make some moves. People (many of which were a Xbox fans too) rightly called them out. Generally good competition is good for all consumers, I hope MS is a good custodian of the IP and studios they have bought, I think it is a good fit and look forward to playing them wherever they are released.

All the console wars side of this is bullshit, in 10 years time although Sony, MS and Nintendo will possibly still make hardware, I expect most games will be accessible on most devices. The important thing is that studios are well funded and competently managed, so we get a regular supply of quality content.

The SONY fans on here, Restera and on social media have been more than vocal, it's why we've had Halo Infinite delayed for a year. Lets not kid ourselves that member's of Xbox don't look and act, by what is said on social media
But Team Xbox has now hit back. Long gone are the jokes over an underpowered GPU, No In-House teams and no IP's other than Halo or Forza.

Lets also not kid ourselves that some 2 years from now, Bethesda games will be coming to the PS5. It will just be Xbox and PC and maybe the odd port to Nintendo's handheld. Like I say, thank you so much SONY fans, thank you!!!

​

 

[Mr.ODST]

..and Prey and The Evil Within and Indiana Jones and Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo and any other new IP's from all these teams..

and Quake.

 

[reksveks]

Jeffy Grubb Grubb and Xbox UK suggest that we will get a event on Thursday

 

[Chessmate]

I guess Bo Hazem will go and take very long nap if all these legendary games won't be coming to Playstation anymore.

 

[Interfectum]

The SONY fans on here, Restera and on social media have been more than vocal, it's why we've had Halo Infinite delayed for a year. Lets not kid ourselves that member's of Xbox don't look and act, by what is said on social media
But Team Xbox has now hit back. Long gone are the jokes over an underpowered GPU, No In-House teams and no IP's other than Halo or Forza.

Lets also not kid ourselves that some 2 years from now, Bethesda games will be coming to the PS5. It will just be Xbox and PC and maybe the odd port to Nintendo's handheld. Like I say, thank you so much SONY fans, thank you!!!

​

 

[M16]

Elder Scrolls, Fallout, and Doom were the big IP gains. Bethesda and Id Software were the big studio gains. Nothing else they acquired is that big of a deal, to be honest.

For IPs, no one knows anything about Starfield nevermind getting attached to it as a franchise. Wolfenstein, Prey, Dishonored, and Evil Within are not anything that would make a big difference. We're even assuming that Prey, Dishonored, and Evil Within are going to continue at all.

For studios? Alpha Dog is just a small mobile developer that I would be surprised survives the acquisition. Roundhouse is the old Human Head team and quite frankly they suck. ZeniMax Online made one MMO themselves that they had to make free-to-play to survive and it's already on PS5. If they ever make another game it will likely be a long time from now and risky. Tango Gameworks isn't bad but they're not headliners and Arkane's titles always seem to be flashes in the pan. Machine Games did great with Wolfenstein 2 but their entries before that weren't nearly as good and Youngblood, which they developed alongside Arkane, was terrible.

Hell, Bethesda itself has been shoddy lately. They had a streak of great, if not fantastic games, for a long time with Fallout 4 being the end of that streak 6 years ago. Fallout 76 was dogshit and Elder Scrolls: Blades impressed no one. Hopefully they get their shit together under Microsoft because I'm really hoping Elder Scrolls 6 is awesome. But if nothing else Id Software is on fire with Doom with right now so that will further cement Microsoft in the FPS genre which Sony has pretty much abandoned.



Across 5 platforms and over the course of 5 years by the time those numbers were announced. At launch, almost 60% of copies sold were on Xbox. Less than 2 months later, Steam accounted for half of its sales. Comments made over the years make it pretty clear, Skyrim was a wild success on PC. Even crushing Team Fortress 2 and becoming the most played game on Steam by a huge margin. Which was a giant accomplishment at the time. Todd Howard was even quoted as saying that the PC mods are what helped Skyrim blow up. So a logical conclusion is that when it comes to consoles, Xbox was the lead platform for Skyrim anyways. Overall, PC is where Skyrim truly flourished.

Ultimately, it's going to take a long time for Microsoft to bear fruit from this acquisition in the form of exclusives for Xbox. Which assumes they even go that route based on past comments prior to the acquisition going through. Right now there are too many contractual obligations and projects in too early of development for this to have any effect in the first half of this generation. By the time the second half rolls around, which is when you'll start seeing the real results of this acquisition, the generation will have already been decided one way or the other. As I've said in other threads, acquiring ZeniMax will have a far greater impact on future generations than the current one. Though that will be based on whether or not Microsoft's first party can succeed in being competitive with Sony's and Nintendo's. Microsoft has a long ways to go to claw itself out of the distant third place it's in.

and when microsoft buys the next big publisher, we'll get another one of these goofy replies, where no games matter except sonys.
at the end point though, when microsoft owns alot of these big publishers(which they eventually will), playstation will be a niche product.

 

[Outrunner]

The SONY fans on here, Restera and on social media have been more than vocal, it's why we've had Halo Infinite delayed for a year. Lets not kid ourselves that member's of Xbox don't look and act, by what is said on social media
But Team Xbox has now hit back. Long gone are the jokes over an underpowered GPU, No In-House teams and no IP's other than Halo or Forza.

Lets also not kid ourselves that some 2 years from now, Bethesda games will be coming to the PS5. It will just be Xbox and PC and maybe the odd port to Nintendo's handheld. Like I say, thank you so much SONY fans, thank you!!!

​

Dude, you still haven o games.

 

[THE DUCK]

Dude, you still haven o games.

Hate to break this to you, but really neither next gen machine has any true blockbuster AAA games to date. You can try and say Dark Souls, Spiderman add on, bla bla bla bla....... but the truth is they aren't GT, or Uncharted, or Ratchet, or Last of Us, or GOW, or Horizon.

 

[NullZ3r0]

Microsoft should definitely keep future games exclusive on Xbox. Whether it be Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Doom whatever. It's their property now and they should give people a reason to buy an Xbox.

This isn't about people buying Xbox. It's about people subscribing to GamePass. MS makes pennies on hardware. GamePass is their cash cow.

 

[Hendrick's]

Dude, you still haven o games.

You mean like: Observer: System Redux , Ori and the Will of the Wisps, Outbreak, Outriders... ?

 

[Umbasaborne]

Hate to break this to you, but really neither next gen machine has any true blockbuster AAA games to date. You can try and say Dark Souls, Spiderman add on, bla bla bla bla....... but the truth is they aren't GT, or Uncharted, or Ratchet, or Last of Us, or GOW, or Horizon.

Spiderman, demons souls, returnal, and ratchet are bigger than any first party game microsoft has in the pipe line for 2021 that we know about outside of halo.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I think it would be less a nice guy move and more like weighing the pros and cons of making established franchises exclusive. Will it be more beneficial to try and leverage exclusives to sell more consoles or just use the existing franchises to make the most money from them by selling them on the same platforms they've been available on? Which benefits Microsoft more in the long run? Which route is the most likely to show returns faster? What if Microsoft makes them exclusive and nothing really changes? These are all questions that they've likely been debating since they pulled the trigger on buying ZeniMax. There was already clearly a disconnect at the upper levels of Microsoft on what the plan was for this acquisition. One head implying the exclusives would start rolling and another saying they think it's a better idea to essentially treat this like Mojang.

It's the result of Microsoft not being in a controlling position in the console space. Their competitors have too much market share to ignore. If Microsoft was dominating, the call would be much easier to make. Don't bother making these games for other platforms. They'd make enough selling on just their console and PC. But this is a $7.5 billion price tag just to purchase them, your last console got outsold by probably 2.5-to-1 by its main competitor, and the other already blew by its numbers with 40 fewer months on the market. In that position what do you really do?

There is just no way MS is looking to make a straight return on this investment, so that can't figure in. Even if you say Zeni has had 100m a year in profit (and that's high for a gaming company on 500m a year revenue, I know in the recent Sega reports that they didn't average 20% profit), that's 75 years to break even if things stayed as they are. LOL

This was about first mover advantage with the subscription service and jumping out and securing content before there was a lot of competition for it. IMO

 

[DaGwaphics]

What do you really do?
Well, you can start by not sharing one of the few proper advantages you have with the competition.


I won’t really be affected by any exclusivity deal no matter where they happen, I’m mostly a PC gamer but within a few years I’ll be everywhere as always.

So to be honest I’m just debating here, I’m trying to think what could be done to make people care more about Xbox. And I just don’t see how they can change anything without essentially forcing people there. It sounds brutal but why swap to play somewhere else if you can keep playing on what you already have?

Xbox is already a great platform, has been great since the start, the majority of the games has been there, games has for the most part performed well.

But Sony always had more, better and more important exclusives. That’s really it.

So I’d say this, for Xbox to grow it simply needs more, better and more important exclusives. It wouldn’t be fixed by Bethesda’s games alone but it would be a start.

Bethesda games as multiplats would earn them more money but it would keep the Xbox as a platform at status quo. Which essentially means that Xbox would shrink compared to Playstation since Sony is far more aggressive and is likely going to grow this gen just like previous gen.

I'll go a step further and say I just can't see how Xbox can even continue if release their software on competing consoles. If you can get the multi-plats, the MS first-party and the PS exclusives on PS, that platform is the much better value overall. MS has already lowered console sales a bit by releasing everything on PC (but those buyers would have probably only played exclusives anyway, so not the best customers), but putting your content on other consoles really castrates the ecosystem they appear to be trying to create.

 

[Outrunner]

You mean like: Observer: System Redux , Ori and the Will of the Wisps, Outbreak, Outriders... ?

were you trying to mention exclusives? cause you failed

 

[THEAP99]

were you trying to mention exclusives? cause you failed

Microsoft publishes Ori

 

[lame gag1990]

This isn't about people buying Xbox. It's about people subscribing to GamePass. MS makes pennies on hardware. GamePass is their cash cow.

Which is on Xbox?

 

[Fredrik]

I'll go a step further and say I just can't see how Xbox can even continue if release their software on competing consoles. If you can get the multi-plats, the MS first-party and the PS exclusives on PS, that platform is the much better value overall. MS has already lowered console sales a bit by releasing everything on PC (but those buyers would have probably only played exclusives anyway, so not the best customers), but putting your content on other consoles really castrates the ecosystem they appear to be trying to create.

Agreed.

What Sony is doing with the 2-year-later releases on PC is fine, that could work like ads for upcoming games.

But if MS start releasing Bethesda’s game day 1 on PS they would disarm one of the biggest platform selling bombs the industry has ever seen.

Imagine The Elder Scrolls VI, Fallout 5, Starfield, DOOM 3, exclusive to Xbox.

It’s brutal and a total dick move but that’s how you start selling consoles. They could remake Sony’s E3 used games trailer and make a step by step list on how to play those games after the first showcase.
1. Buy a Xbox.
2. Play the game.

 

[reksveks]

Which is on Xbox?

And on mobile and PC and soon a browser.

 

[Adam_802]

And done!

 

[LisaMariaMartin]

I'll go a step further and say I just can't see how Xbox can even continue if release their software on competing consoles. If you can get the multi-plats, the MS first-party and the PS exclusives on PS, that platform is the much better value overall. MS has already lowered console sales a bit by releasing everything on PC (but those buyers would have probably only played exclusives anyway, so not the best customers), but putting your content on other consoles really castrates the ecosystem they appear to be trying to create.

Exactly. I don't see the point in owning an Xbox SX if I can play half their games on a PS5. Would make me question their longevity as a console maker to be honest.

 

[JLB]

TESVI console exclusive alone is going to be GOTY news of the year.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Agreed.

What Sony is doing with the 2-year-later releases on PC is fine, that could work like ads for upcoming games.

But if MS start releasing Bethesda’s game day 1 on PS they would disarm one of the biggest platform selling bombs the industry has ever seen.

Imagine The Elder Scrolls VI, Fallout 5, Starfield, DOOM 3, exclusive to Xbox.

It’s brutal and a total dick move but that’s how you start selling consoles. They could remake Sony’s E3 used games trailer and make a step by step list on how to play those games after the first showcase.
1. Buy a Xbox.
2. Play the game.

But MS's gaming shoes are filled with self inflicted wounds already, so we just never know with them.

 

[Mr.ODST]

Spiderman, demons souls, returnal, and ratchet are bigger than any first party game microsoft has in the pipe line for 2021 that we know about outside of halo.

In before Halo Infinite

 

[THE DUCK]

In before Halo Infinite

Plus I swear I said right now.......not the future........

 

[Outrunner]

Microsoft publishes Ori

And it is on Switch

 

[lame gag1990]

And on mobile and PC and soon a browser.

Why did Microsoft release an Xbox?

 

[THE DUCK]

Why did Microsoft release an Xbox?

Might have something to do with the millions of gamers who don't play on PC or mobile?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I don't feel like the comparison is apt because back then there wasn't even digital distribution, let alone services like GamePass. Back then the business was entirely running on the razors and razorblades model, and this is no longer the case.

But Sony still leveraged the tools available at the time, and which were in their means of use through financial capacity. Microsoft is doing the same today. Yet for some reason people want to excuse the former as being perfectly valid and the latter as being a potentially unfair business practice, on the grounds of an ethical argument....in relation to a corporate-standard, corporate structure-centered business practice.
AFAIK unless actual human or civil rights are violated, or legal laws are broken, a deal's a deal and any method is potentially one worth pursuing, and valid under the legal definition.

The issue is that they will have personnel and resources either earmarked for, or actively working on Playstation SKU's. Yes they can write off the work, reassign the teams. return the devkits, sack everyone surplus to requirements, whatever. The problem is that they've just turned a profit generating unit into nothing or worse. These are people, not lego bricks, you can't just plug them into the nearest free slot. Its disruptive, and there's no gain to be made.

We don't know how much has been earmarked for PlayStation ports of games, nor do we know how far any of those versions are. I think you are overestimating the impact of those costs in spinning down PlayStation versions in development to what is essentially a revitalized Xbox division, that now has more support from the main company. Dev kit prices aren't anywhere near as high as they used to be for consoles back in the '90s or '00s, relatively speaking, because now much more of the bulk work can be done on general-purpose PCs.

Companies handle internal reorganizations/reassignments often; I'm certain there are contingency plans in place if certain versions of games are cancelled, as it's not like cancellations of ports haven't happened before in the industry. This is actually something that happened somewhat frequently with the Sega Saturn back in the '90s, even in 1997 (when the system was still commercially viable and still somewhat competitive with PlayStation in the West). Even at that time, when Saturn ports of certain games like Tomb Raider 2 or Resident Evil 2 (both of which had planned Saturn ports, and other games with Saturn versions at decent rate of dev that still got those versions cancelled) would have recouped their porting costs, publishers (some at the behest of Sony via exclusivity deals) still cut those versions loose.

(And yes, I'm fully aware of Bernie Stolar's (idiotic) statements regarding Saturn at E3 1997 which led to a lot of Western software cancellations for Saturn. However, a decent deal of those ports were somewhat decently along, and could've sold to Saturn users desperate for content to recoup dev costs...and yet were still cancelled.)

This is with keeping in mind that you needed to do actual full rewrites of code for ports back in the day, which incurred major relative costs for software development and R&D. It's not like today where the systems share a lot of the same architectural and feature-set DNA, so porting costs, while likely being higher in a raw comparison to costs back in the day, are a lot cheaper platform-to-platform in a modern relativistic context, mainly influenced by the size of the porting team and salaries/paychecks to cover for the time invested in porting.

I'm kinda tired of this discussion because it seems to me that noone wants to factor in basic business concepts like opportunity cost and return on investment. The basis of my position is that its simply easier and more profitable to allow Zenimax studios to keep operating as previously and modify the publishing conditions so as to best leverage Gamepass and the overall Xbox ecosystem.

I just did all of that above

But with that said, you're not considering the impact allowing Zenimax studios to continue releasing software on competing console platforms/ecosystem will have to their new parent company and its console platform/ecosystem AND subscription service (GamePass).

You've heard this before: if fervent publishing of most major Zenimax games is allowed to occur on Sony or Nintendo platforms, and Microsoft has no inroads for GamePass being available on those platforms, both Xbox AND GamePass suffer. The only benefit for Microsoft to take this approach would be if they planned a full transition into a third-party publishing company.

And hey, maybe for all we know that's something they're considering. But it'd be a wild theory, with no proof to corroborate it at this time, and runs contrary to many statements from top figures. The only way to even begin considering that being an option is if Sony and Nintendo allow GamePass, as-is, to come to their platforms. Which last I checked, isn't happening.

Never mind the argument of MS doing this, in some appeal to go 3P, completely cuts them out of royalties of 3P software sales in their own established ecosystem, which would negatively impact them, at least as things are right now.

To reiterate: Bottom line is the opportunity cost is relatively low and the earning potential is high. That's the motive to do it, at least in the short term. Its an entirely reasonable proposition and it boggles my mind I've gotten so much static over pointing this out.

So you say the opportunity cost in putting their software on PlayStation and Switch is low, yet your earlier statements I quoted above contradict this belief. Which one is it? If the opportunity cost is low, then cancelling versions of software in-development for other consoles is also low, while the earning potential for making those games exclusive to their platforms and platforms that support their ecosystem/services is high, potentially even higher because it will drive those on competing console platforms to consider jumping into the Xbox/PC/GamePass ecosystem to get access to these games.

The reason you've gotten static over it is because the POV itself has flaws in it, and we're discussing those flaws with these responses.

Lifetime exclusivity is less common than timed exclusivity and co-promotion deals because generally its simply unnecessary. When it does happen there are typically compelling reasons for not producing other SKU's, stuff like (as I mentioned) elevated opportunity cost due to unavoidable re-tooling, or a projected sales performance insufficient to justify the effort.

That is valid for third-parties, but we're speaking of a publishing firm that is now technically a first-party entity. Naturally, first-party studios enjoy privileges, financial security, resource access etc. that third-party developers generally do not have. Microsoft will be providing all of that to the Zenimax studios going forward, there is no doubt about that.

For first-party studios, lifetime exclusivity tends to be the favored approach by far, and we have both Sony and especially Nintendo's own 1P library to prove why. Firstly, it creates a vested interest for people to come to your platform-ecosystem and stay within it (that doesn't mean they ONLY use your platform-ecosystem, just that yours will be one they utilize in addition to others, most likely). Secondly, it adds perception of product value by the customer base; valuation by the customer base within the ecosystem or willing to join the ecosystem translates to increasing the valuation of the IP the exclusive software in that ecosystem belong to.

Thirdly, it acts as a means of securing the platform holder from certain types of market volatility. Third-party support can come and go, or not prioritize your platform/ecosystem in comparison to a competitor. Having first-party content that remains exclusive to your own platform-ecosystem allows the first-party studios to hone their development to a specific platform (hardware or software dev chain, or both) and leverage the most out of its capabilities. This is exactly something that benefits Sony's own first-party developers, so if they seem to understand that...why wouldn't Microsoft? Especially considering Microsoft was hurt the most by lack of curating consistent 1P content last gen?

Now I can seen an argument for stating that, since Microsoft has so many first-party studios now, they can simply afford to have some of these prioritize multi-platform for competing console platform-ecosystems (or service-ecosystems, i.e Amazon Luna) because they have sheer volume of studios. Maybe there's some truth to that, but this is where I can probably give my own perspective on that "case-by-case" statement made months back. To me, "case-by-case" means late ports of very specific titles Microsoft would like to leverage to bolster attention to the Xbox/PC/GamePass ecosystem, to act essentially as "advertisments" and appetizers to Sony and Nintendo gamers...

...or in other words, almost exactly what I see many people frame Sony's increased expedition of select 1P content to PC as: "advertisements" and appetizers to PC gamers to jump into the PlayStation ecosystem (i.e buy a PS5) to play their other 1P content and sequels to those older ports, or squeeze out some last profits from the games. That last bit, at most, would maybe factor for some of these Zenimax games as well, so even if they were to come to Sony and Nintendo platforms, I would not expect that until the games have essentially run their course on Xbox/PC/GamePass, likely 2-3 years after initial release at earliest (and again, only for very select pieces of software).

In the case of Zenimax product, and I'm thinking specifically of Bethesda and ID's stuff here, we have low opportunity cost because these games are built using multi-platform tech, and being proven popular IP outside of Xbox there's no impediment in terms of expected return on investment. Apply that business logic to the counter-examples people have put forward and a consistent pattern emerges.

Or we can compare them to the examples I mention in this post that I feel have poked holes in your own logic on this topic and shown at least some element of (likely ironic/unintentional) contradiction within your POV here

At the very least tho, it is very clear you've put a lot of thought into framing your POV and I commend that. I just simply don't agree with it and I believe to have made very clear now with this particular post.

 

[reksveks]

Why did Microsoft release an Xbox?

To give users an option? Not every user wants to access the xbox platform via a pc, mobile or browser, Some do. it's the why bit.

Microsoft produces certain hardware to 1) give users a choice 2) to be a reference design model for other OEM's.

BTW i am not 100% sure that if GamePass came to PS consoles, if that's enough. GamePass is one bit of the long term sell of the xbox, the other part is the platform and mainly the MTX revenue that comes associated with it.

 

[reksveks]

double post, delete if you want

 

[.Pennywise]

Dear diary.

It's been months already since the announcement of Microsoft buying Bethesda. Today we have official confirmation that the deal is done and gone. However, PlayStation fans are still in the denial phase. I'm concerned about their mental health.

I'll wait for the Quake Batteroyale on GamePass to see if they make further progress. Although I'm afraid it might be too late for them...

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

A potential strategy is to keep existing franchises on multiple platforms but having any new IP console exclusive to Xbox. Perhaps having spinoff titles from franchises exclusive but keep mainline ones on everything. They did this with Mojang and Minecraft as far as keeping an existing franchise coming on everything else. In this way, Microsoft's image gets a boost with the community at large while also leveraging their new studios to create exclusives that people aren't already attached to. This keeps the money from franchises like Doom coming at max while giving them options for how to expand Xbox.

Microsoft's image gets a boost, but from whom? Gamers who actually would consider buying an Xbox or subscribing to Gamepass, or Sony & Nintendo gamers who simply want to stay on those platforms at all costs and note take one of many options of investing into the Xbox/GamePass ecosystem?

Because if it's the latter, then honestly their opinion shouldn't matter to Microsoft. Those are the kind of hardcore loyalists (btw I'm not painting every Sony/Nintendo supporter as a hardcore single-platform loyalist; many Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft gamers tend to own more than one platform brand and a lot of the more hardcore ones also have a semi-decent PC most likely) who have no vested interest in contributing to the growth of Xbox or Gamepass, and would probably rather Microsoft become a 3rd-party publisher altogether.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't say the latter have Microsoft's greater corporate interests at heart. Thankfully, this same sect are an extreme minority of gamers in the grand scheme of things. To the rest of your point, it makes no sense for Microsoft to continue keeping all existing IPs multiplat considering some of those games are literally massive enough to draw in a big swath of gamers to the ecosystem if they haven't yet, simply to play said games.

I think anything outside of MMORPG titles like ESO, are going to be very selective "case-by-case" in the best case, and only after said games have exhausted their run in the Xbox/PC/GamePass ecosystem. So you're looking at 2-3 years later...at earliest. And such ports would serve a role similar to what Sony's PC ports seem to be doing: advertisements and appetizers to pull in those other gamers to their main platform/service ecosystem.

How many big third party publishers did Sony buy?

I can't believe the sheer amount of hypocrisy at display in this thread. Every single person who cried about "anti consumer Sony" for years and threw a tantrum at exclusive Spiderman DLC for a shitty GaaS game now thinks that permanently taking away popular third party franchises from platforms is somehow "pro consumer".

This is an ethical argument where there are no ethical grounds for such an argument to be made in the first place. If Microsoft isn't violating human rights or civil rights/liberties, or breaking any established laws, then this acquisition is perfectly fine. Apparently multiple international governments agree.

So it doesn't really matter if you feel it's wrong or anti-consumer or whatever; fact is the law doesn't agree with that notion, therefore the deal has passed. I personally have my own quarrels with major consolidations, even questionable timed exclusivity etc. But I can separate my own personal feelings on it from the reality of how these things work and realize my personal feelings aren't going to change or reverse these deals. If that means I need to buy into a different or more platforms/services to enjoy the content, then that's something I'll simply have to do because at the end of the day....

...it's just business.

 

[NickFire]

Microsoft's image gets a boost, but from whom? Gamers who actually would consider buying an Xbox or subscribing to Gamepass, or Sony & Nintendo gamers who simply want to stay on those platforms at all costs and note take one of many options of investing into the Xbox/GamePass ecosystem?

Because if it's the latter, then honestly their opinion shouldn't matter to Microsoft. Those are the kind of hardcore loyalists (btw I'm not painting every Sony/Nintendo supporter as a hardcore single-platform loyalist; many Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft gamers tend to own more than one platform brand and a lot of the more hardcore ones also have a semi-decent PC most likely) who have no vested interest in contributing to the growth of Xbox or Gamepass, and would probably rather Microsoft become a 3rd-party publisher altogether.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't say the latter have Microsoft's greater corporate interests at heart. Thankfully, this same sect are an extreme minority of gamers in the grand scheme of things. To the rest of your point, it makes no sense for Microsoft to continue keeping all existing IPs multiplat considering some of those games are literally massive enough to draw in a big swath of gamers to the ecosystem if they haven't yet, simply to play said games.

I think anything outside of MMORPG titles like ESO, are going to be very selective "case-by-case" in the best case, and only after said games have exhausted their run in the Xbox/PC/GamePass ecosystem. So you're looking at 2-3 years later...at earliest. And such ports would serve a role similar to what Sony's PC ports seem to be doing: advertisements and appetizers to pull in those other gamers to their main platform/service ecosystem.



This is an ethical argument where there are no ethical grounds for such an argument to be made in the first place. If Microsoft isn't violating human rights or civil rights/liberties, or breaking any established laws, then this acquisition is perfectly fine. Apparently multiple international governments agree.

So it doesn't really matter if you feel it's wrong or anti-consumer or whatever; fact is the law doesn't agree with that notion, therefore the deal has passed. I personally have my own quarrels with major consolidations, even questionable timed exclusivity etc. But I can separate my own personal feelings on it from the reality of how these things work and realize my personal feelings aren't going to change or reverse these deals. If that means I need to buy into a different or more platforms/services to enjoy the content, then that's something I'll simply have to do because at the end of the day....

...it's just business.

Arguing to ignore everyone who has not bought your product yet, and to only listen to people who already bought in, is not in any way, shape or form putting MS corporate interests at heart. That is calling for MS to make existing fans happy by stifling corporate growth. That is antithetical to MS business interests imo.

 

[futurama78]

I first knew about es on pc, but played on xbox 360. So like that’s nostalgia ^___^

 

[Derktron]

Dear diary.

It's been months already since the announcement of Microsoft buying Bethesda. Today we have official confirmation that the deal is done and gone. However, PlayStation fans are still in the denial phase. I'm concerned about their mental health.

I'll wait for the Quake Batteroyale on GamePass to see if they make further progress. Although I'm afraid it might be too late for them...

I’m sorry but I’m not a fanboy of Sony and even I’m in denial too. I have to admit.