ManaByte
Gold Member
So will the same apply to Square when Sony buys them?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft Bethesda purchased to be finalized today
- Thread starter Craig of War
- Start date
- Rumor
So will the same apply to Square when Sony buys them?
onesvenus
Member
What's the excuse on insomniac then? It was doing multiplatform games before the purchase.
If they had the expertise, not doing what you are proposing here shouldn't make sense, should it?
Silent Viper
Banned
Providence? Are we talking same providence from Hitman games?
DarkMage619
$MSFT
At least you figured out that you don't get 3 years of Gamepass for a dollar so that's progress. You are still the only one that knows MS's true motives though. People should heed your warnings!
LisaMariaMartin
Banned
Or Obsidian. Or Double Fine.
The argument that they need to do this to reap profits from Zenimax is an incredibly odd one. It's no secret that founders shopped the company around and they probably did this because Zenimax wasn't particularly profitable so why would MS buy them and operate the same way?
darthpaxton
Neo Member
You guys really think that Sony is going to take a series like Spider-Man, the 12th highest-grossing media franchise of all time, and decide not to sell it to half the market?
You guys really think Nintendo is going to take a series like Legend of Zelda, one of the best-selling franchises of all time , and decide not to sell it to half the market?
You're filling this thread with very definitive statements like this, which sound good but just don't stand up to even a second of scrutiny.
There are lots of reasons why, as Zenimax's new owners, Microsoft would go full exclusive. But you know that.
Would Bethesda cease to be profitable without PlayStation? No, they wouldn't.
But even so, there are five million PS5s in the wild, nearly as many Xboxs and many, many more PCs, tablets and phones.
Actually, this is EXACTLY the time when you'd up-end a profitable venture.
Bernkastel
Ask me about my fanboy energy!
But they are not abandoning last gen, only some titles are next gen only. They are not mandating everything to be next gen only for themselves or their partners.Why would they only want Bethesda to make those timed exclusive titles next gen only? Because it is Bethesda that wants to abandon last gen. So
Bittermich
Banned
why do people make shit up like this? It’s done by Xbox business unit. Not like Minecraft at all.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
I've already spelled this out. Its not a binary thing, they can transition to full exclusivity as and when it makes the most sense business-wise.
First and foremost they are going to try to maximize benefit from the acquisition, so making a blanket statement up-front would at most be a PR move because plans change over time and its going to take years for them to finish developing the next installments of these high-value franchises.
Especially so as their release schedule needs to accommodate all their other newly acquired studios output. Again, this is another benefit of owning these IP and publishers - they get to set launch timings and delivery cadences.
So yeah, there are 5 mil PS5's out now, but there'll be a whole lot more by the time these games are out. Similarly, right now there are millions of Zenimax games being actively sold/supported on PS4 right now, in a few years time there'll be less so the balance of the relationship between the publisher and the platform holder will shift over time. How that shapes up is anyone's guess, the market will decide in the end.
Long story short, right now Zenimax businesses are very entangled right with Playstation. There are two timed exclusives we know of, and heaven knows how much work has been done on the PS4/PS5 builds of other upcoming projects that likely have been in the works for years at this point. They start making noises about dropping future support and the first thing Sony will do is pull back any and all devkits that aren't in use on active projects, they can do this on the drop of dime because devkits* are always loaned, and never sold.
Basically winding down support for non-MS platforms over time is a lot less hassle than trying to simply cut-it-off.
*Don't confuse this with test-kits, which are basically rebadged retail units with modified firmware, the hardware and materials relating to actual development can be deactivated and recalled at any point. Point being if it
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Last edited:
ManaByte
Gold Member
So basically after they release the games you want on the PlayStation it‘s fine for them to become exclusive.
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Microsoft earned 143 billion dollars in 2020 alone.
Why do Playstation fanatics think that Microsoft needs the blue money so much?
7.5 billion dollars for bethesda were pocket change for Microsoft.
It's an investment as a whole to make people buy into their eco system. They dont care if they get the 7.5 billion back or not from Bethesda, its about bolstering their brand.
Last edited:
Starfield and Wolfenstein 3 are both potentially out by early 2022, not to mention current-gen re-releases of collections for Wolfenstein, Dishonored and Prey, which seem to be Xbox only. Wouldn't surprise me if they're shadow dropped this week.
The former two are based on rumours and the latter is based on age ratings, so not official. Point being, this isn't a years away issue by any means, but apart from that we agree so far. A blanket statement is unlikely.
Has no bearing on anything. Both Microsoft and Sony are dealing with other platform holders with their games and that's only going to become more common going forward.
Zenimax's relationship with Sony here won't change. You just won't get new or re-released games on PlayStation unless there's already contracts in place or it benefits the game itself (so ESO 2 with cross play).
This is where you go off the deepend.
Microsoft has paid for the PS5 versions of any games in development as part of that 7.5b. It's done. They can cancel it all they want, and that's if we're presuming porting ever began. If Starfield is out at the end of the year and this deal was in the works for months before it was announced, there's no reason Bethesda couldn't have halted production towards PlayStation here before the September announcement. In fact, it'd be the clever thing to do, unless they've already been paid to bring it to PlayStation. That's not really how it works as standard, but its not impossible.
It makes no sense for Sony to pull dev kits. Why would they? Beyond the two exclusives that aren't finished yet, Sony WANT Bethesda games on their platform. If they're not needed, fine, but they're not going to vindictivly pull them just because.
By non-MS platforms, you just mean PlayStation, and it's just not true that it's a lot less hassle. We don't know what kind of hassle it will be, because we don't know anything about these games.
What we do know is the short-term benefits of multi-plat Bethesda releases - whatever small amount of cash, whatever business issues would need to be sorted - are outweighed by longer term issues. It muddies the water on exclusivity, it harms Gamepass and it will damage the Xbox brand.
It's not impossible, but it won't be because of the reasons you've said.
martino
Member
I see lot of this thinking lately where it's fine exclusivity is there or lost based on what is mostly some personal feeling agenda of duration/price or something else....
No corporation will decide to please those "fan" extreme specific feelings if it makes no sense for them business wise.
If ms or sony see the best for them is day one release everywhere it will be that , if it's 6 month ,1 year , more or not release then they will choose those other ways (using actual data per game/licence imo after some blind tests if needed)
Last edited:
Agent_Nobody
Member
Mr.ODST
Member
Funny fact is people forget Microsoft make absolute bank, 7.5 isnt much for this company.
Sony couldn't even afford the 7.5 billion to buyout a company without some sort of setback in their divisions
DaGwaphics
Member
You've got to think that GP growth and eventual GP profits are more important at the end of the day than Zeni's numbers overall. Eventually there will be competition for GP which will bring with it bidding wars for content, thus MS is trying to secure a very large stable of first-party content as the primary selling point for GP. The same thing has happened in the Netflix/Hulu wars.
ManaByte
Gold Member
7.5 billion isn't even pocket change for MS. It's the change that falls between the sofa cushions.
Iced Arcade
Member
well that's interesting and hilarious to read
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
I didn’t know that existed.
FrankWza
Member
That’s exactly what it is. Counting gold price in the equation is like saying you have to spend $499 for a series x to play games on. It’s a mandatory purchase either way.
Dealmaster: You can still convert 3 years of Xbox Live to Game Pass Ultimate for $1
Plus Prime-only deals on a bunch of Amazon devices, Xbox One gamepads, and more.
www.google.com
BUT HURRY....they’re going to close the loophole any YEAR now.
Last edited:
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
FrankWza
Member
Why did they double gold price?
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Like every other company.
They want to earn more money. They aren't running a charity.
Last edited:
LisaMariaMartin
Banned
Why do you think they did it?
FrankWza
Member
I thought maybe they were moving offices and the moving company lost some of their furniture. A couch or two perhaps?
Because they wanted new Xbox owners to pick Gamepass over Gold. Old subscribers were keeping the same price.
Give it a bit of thought. How much money do you think they were actually going to make off that price hike?
Mister Wolf
Member
You're making too much sense. Alot of people gonna get their balloon popped this year. Then it will turn into a Fox And The Grapes scenario.
Iced Arcade
Member
That’s exactly what it is. Counting gold price in the equation is like saying you have to spend $499 for a series x to play games on. It’s a mandatory purchase either way.
Dealmaster: You can still convert 3 years of Xbox Live to Game Pass Ultimate for $1
Plus Prime-only deals on a bunch of Amazon devices, Xbox One gamepads, and more.
BUT HURRY....they’re going to close the loophole any YEAR now.
basically buy 3 years worth of gold and can upgrade it for $1 to turn it into ultimate.
only works once per user btw.
RGB'D
Member
It's so strange how some people sre having a hard time seeing anything beyond immediate reasons. You don't spend 7.5 billion without having a long term plan. They don't realize even large companies will run at net negative at times to continue investing in themselves and to strengthen their ultimate potential at gains. Even if the Bethesda deal hemorrhages money, Microsoft is okay because they have a huge net value to absorb the loss. What exclusivity does is strengthen the argument to buy into Xbox ecosystem in some form. The fact that so many playstation warriors are having difficulty with this and in such denial over the impending exclusivity is just proof that this move makes Xbox a stronger brand moving forward. I wouldn't have bough a PS5 if insomniac/naughty dog/Sony Santa Monica weren't there. It looks like the xbox has an argument for buying into their ecosystem in some way, even for the Sony fans that this conflicts with their own edict (which is fucking ridiculous anyways). If they continue porting to Playstation, it will make absolutely no sense as to why they made the purchase in the first place. Anything is possible, but it would be really strange and is a miniscule likelihood.
CatLady
Selfishly plays on Xbox Purr-ies X
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
There are no "long term issues", Zenimax has always been a viable, profitable business. The danger is that changing its operating practices will result in loss of earnings, and considering that this is a business that generates over $500mil a year in revenue even a 10% drop is a very considerable chunk of change.
And the plain fact is that dropping other platforms will cause revenue to fall even more than that, there is simply no way that MS can cover the shortfall because they simply cannot manufacture and sell enough hardware in the equivalent time-frame. Especially following a year of component supply chain disruption caused by Covid.
At the start of a console cycle, everyones revenue falls because the addressable market simply isn't big enough. Its why we have 2 years or more of cross-gen product. Doubling down on that loss by artificially narrowing the audience further is just going to result in oceans of red-ink.
They may have paid $7.5b to buy the car, but now they need to run it too. With over 1000 employees spread across every continent we're talking about millions a month in burn-rate, and even if they downsize aggressively they still have to deal with negative PR, one-off costs incurred for forced redundancies and site reorganizations, not to mention the loss of morale and productivity in a workforce unsure of their future.
Oh, and of course you can't expect other studios under the MIcrosoft Studios umbrella to be untouched by any of this. Its going to have scheduling and content knock-ons for everyone, because they can't just drop a dozen titles onto GamePass in the same quarter, once every 3 or 4 years! Dates are going to get bumped, milestones adjusted and things that are a bit too similar to other things are going to get nixed.
Seriously, how many new Gamepass subs is it going to cost to underwrite all of that?
Concern
Member
Bernkastel
Ask me about my fanboy energy!
Why would someone LOL the OP? Who reads a news update post and laughs out loud?
Majukun
Member
never said that they have no market relevance.
i said they bought bethesda and their Ip to increase the relevance that they already had, not to make direct profit from selling games, because they already have plenty of studios they can use to do that and still some strong IPs they can leverage
and they really needed to do it because the xbone era has been a disaster from this perspective..of course relevance changes from market to market, but right now microsoft isn't anywhere as big as a threat to sony compared to what they were during the 360 era.
Last edited:
FrankWza
Member
Double. It’s a pure profit service that has 0 overhead and, when coupled with another service, helps them skew numbers to appear more robust or profitable. Like they’re trying to do with gamepass. Once exclusives start coming the $1 loophole disappears and gpu goes to its new price which includes gold and appears to be a great value.
also, I think they found another couch in storage so they had it laying around.
Majukun
Member
apparentlt this joke flew over my head because i have no idea what are you talking aboutalso, I think they found another couch in storage so they had it laying around.
FrankWza
Member
You didn’t hear it from me, but if you ever need 7 or 10 billion ya go to a Microsoft office and check the couch. You’ll thank me for it later.
RGB'D
Member
I think it's probably worth it for them otherwise why would they have bought it in the first place? It's not like it's a 7.5 billion sinking ship. They are gaining assets in return for the purchase. The car analogy doesn't really work considering Zenimax will generate income. Also with the Microsoft war chest, running Zenimax at 100% loss would hardly bankrupt them... but it could mean all the difference between someone picking up an extra console or game streaming subscription 10 years from now. Microsoft is positioning themselves to dominate as consoles become obsolete or demmphasized (which will eventually happen down the road.)
Wow, not a single point from your last post defended. Fair enough.
Let's take these new points one by one as well.
Microsoft's main goal here is to make more profit than the money would have made in interest. $500m a year is double or closer to triple the interest on $7.5b. $200m would do it. Keeping that in mind, who at Microsoft is going to protest if revenues drop from $500m to, let's be generous, half of that?
Especially if not putting the games on PlayStation today increases the number of people playing on Xbox or PC tomorrow?
Which Microsoft would have known before buying a game development company in a multi-billion dollar merger.
Those same costs are present whether the games go exclusive or not. The question is can Microsoft/Xbox foot the bill? Yes, they can. They can foot that bill and Zenimax will still be profitable. We're talking short-term costs here for the most part, and longer-term costs are put into a game's financing.
So then, this boils down to "is there more harm from releasing on PlayStation than benefit?"
That's up for discussion, but from everything we know about Microsoft's immediate goals, we've gotta say yes. People who can buy a game on PlayStation won't jump into Gamepass, and will probably just wait hoping for exclusive games to be ported. People who see Starfield is coming to PlayStation and are desperate to play it will pick that console, rather than playing it in the Xbox ecosystem.
We could go further, asking whether Microsoft benefits more from a possibly recurring $15 on Gamepass Ultimate than on the profits it'll make on a game released on PlayStation. We can't know the answer, but factor in limited market, multiplat gamers, porting costs etc and it's probably too close to call.
It benefits Microsoft to release as many games as possible as quickly as is sustainable. More quality games with shorter gaps between release dates means more incentive to stay subscribed. We don't have enough data to know what that means for Gamepass, but internally things are changing all the time. Bethesda's purchase hasn't happened overnight, and there's an internal schedule going forward probably for most of the generation with targets already written out, with Bethesda correct and present.
If you're suggesting some level of hidden cost because of the Bethesda purchase, where suddenly Ninja Theory and Obsidian are going to have games canceled and people leaving because of uncertainty, then you're asking me to disprove imagined scenarios in your head, and that's not a job anybody can do.
Microsoft doesn't need money, it needs a way of making its vast fortune work for it. That means acquisitions and plenty of them while interest rates are low. Expect more purchases sooner rather than later.
And if you can't come up with a specific scenario where one of the biggest companies in the world needs to release its product on a competitor's device when they're not in a monopoly situation, then your suggestion holds no water.
The ball is in your court.
Let's take these new points one by one as well.
Profit above all else is not a good way of running a business. This is business 101. If Xbox or Microsoft were hurting for change, I could see your point. But they're not, and in fact, despite your concern over revenues, we know that everybody is bringing in ridiculous amounts of money despite (because) Covid.
Microsoft's main goal here is to make more profit than the money would have made in interest. $500m a year is double or closer to triple the interest on $7.5b. $200m would do it. Keeping that in mind, who at Microsoft is going to protest if revenues drop from $500m to, let's be generous, half of that?
Especially if not putting the games on PlayStation today increases the number of people playing on Xbox or PC tomorrow?
There's a lot of presumptions in here. It seems your point, and correct me if I'm wrong, is "game development is expensive, and so are multi-billion dollar mergers".
Which Microsoft would have known before buying a game development company in a multi-billion dollar merger.
Those same costs are present whether the games go exclusive or not. The question is can Microsoft/Xbox foot the bill? Yes, they can. They can foot that bill and Zenimax will still be profitable. We're talking short-term costs here for the most part, and longer-term costs are put into a game's financing.
So then, this boils down to "is there more harm from releasing on PlayStation than benefit?"
That's up for discussion, but from everything we know about Microsoft's immediate goals, we've gotta say yes. People who can buy a game on PlayStation won't jump into Gamepass, and will probably just wait hoping for exclusive games to be ported. People who see Starfield is coming to PlayStation and are desperate to play it will pick that console, rather than playing it in the Xbox ecosystem.
We could go further, asking whether Microsoft benefits more from a possibly recurring $15 on Gamepass Ultimate than on the profits it'll make on a game released on PlayStation. We can't know the answer, but factor in limited market, multiplat gamers, porting costs etc and it's probably too close to call.
What difference does this make to whether games are going to be exclusive or not?
It benefits Microsoft to release as many games as possible as quickly as is sustainable. More quality games with shorter gaps between release dates means more incentive to stay subscribed. We don't have enough data to know what that means for Gamepass, but internally things are changing all the time. Bethesda's purchase hasn't happened overnight, and there's an internal schedule going forward probably for most of the generation with targets already written out, with Bethesda correct and present.
If you're suggesting some level of hidden cost because of the Bethesda purchase, where suddenly Ninja Theory and Obsidian are going to have games canceled and people leaving because of uncertainty, then you're asking me to disprove imagined scenarios in your head, and that's not a job anybody can do.
After having an okay argument in your last post, you've reverted to "Microsoft wouldn't leave that money on the table!" and that's disappointing.
Microsoft doesn't need money, it needs a way of making its vast fortune work for it. That means acquisitions and plenty of them while interest rates are low. Expect more purchases sooner rather than later.
And if you can't come up with a specific scenario where one of the biggest companies in the world needs to release its product on a competitor's device when they're not in a monopoly situation, then your suggestion holds no water.
The ball is in your court.
Double? Double what? Double what they're earning on Gold now?
Even the biggest Xbox fanboys aren't claiming they're selling that many new Series X consoles, but good on you for the optimism, man. Keep it up.
FrankWza
Member
This is where everyone can stop reading.
mad if Microsoft has forgotten the fundamentals of business for 2 decades while cementing themselves in a distant 3rd out of 3 console manufacturers. Hahaha
FrankWza
Member
Double the money for ZERO. That’s what Xbox gold is. You’re paying for nothing. They attempted to get twice that. You all complained. Now they’ll get their pound of flesh elsewhere
LisaMariaMartin
Banned
They are part of Xbox but seperate from XGS. Matt Booty can't manage 23 studios on his own and Bethesda has its own supply chain. Pete Hines will manage the Bethesda arm, Matt Booty XGS. Both report to Phil, Phil reports to Nadella.
