Support NeoGAF

[Romulus]

Kinda seems like they could easily came right out and be clear about the franchises that are exclusive, but instead, they chose to use a simple riddle. Easy to understand of course, but also makes it easy for them to make changes without committing either way.

 

[Drewpee]

"But if you're an Xbox customer, the thing I want you to know is this is about delivering great exclusive games for you, that ship on platforms where Game Pass exists"

That really is about as clear as it gets in this case. It doesn't even mean Xbox exclusive, just that if your platform doesn't allow Gamepass you will not have access to the first party titles.

Kinda bummed for my PS bros but I get it from a business standpoint.

 

[ethomaz]

When you put “contractual” in the clarification you let the door open to everything.

So any game already announced can have a possible contractual deal in place.

Future new agreements will be exclusives.

 

[rickybooby87]

 

[cyberheater]

Brilliant news.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

Or people who know to read entire quotes instead of cherry picked excerpts. The entire quote included this gem: "And even in the future, there might be things that have either contractual things or legacy on different platforms that we'll go do." That does not prove any game goes outside the Xbox eco-system. But it is a literal statement that games with a legacy on different platforms might get made for those platforms. Key word is might, which means we now wait for every actual launch announcement.

Legacy games refer to games like Elder Scrolls Online which have had a presence on all platforms for years now. Phil is saying he won't pull games like that from the marketplace for PlayStation just because Microsoft owns it now. Fallout 5 and ES6 have no legacy on any platform as they do not exist yet.

 

[phil_t98]

When you put “contractual” in the clarification you let the door open to everything.

not at all, as you know it’s only the stuff signed up on.

wishfull thinking though

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Oh for Pete's sake. How does this thread title exist when he specifically said "or legacy on different platforms that we'll go do."

If you're going to dunk on people, at least make sure the ball goes in!

Legacy in this instance more than likely means legacy titles, i.e titles that are already on other platforms that don't fall into the MMORPG space but otherwise could get additional DLC content, like the upcoming Deathloop.

At this point you're reaching to the point of becoming a human centipede with yourself trying to interpret it as something else. Occam's Razor exists for a reason.

If at some point in the future this doesn't turn out to be the case, say a PS5 and/or Switch version of the next DOOM or Elder Scrolls get listed, then you will be proven correct. But the wording today does not suggest that happening and we'd have to wait a ton of time to see if it's the case. Or we can take Occam's Razor and go with the simplest answer based on today's event instead.

When you put “contractual” in the clarification you let the door open to everything.

So any game already announced can have a possible contractual deal in place.

Future new agreements will be exclusives.

So you're basically just saying what they already said both on Tuesday and today? That outside of announced games with known contracts like Deathloop/Ghostwire and existing multiplat games like '76 and ESO, all future titles are most likely exclusive to Xbox/PC/GamePass.

That doesn't sound like letting the "door open to everything" to me. And currently it's a stretch to assume StarField or Indiana Jones have contractual deals in place where a product outside the Xbox/PC/GamePass ecosystem has timed exclusivity.

Even if there is a version for those games on those other platforms, such as PS5, there's no stipulation saying they have to come out day-and-date to those platforms because platform holders don't arrange for deals to ensure release time parity with another platform (or at least, it is not a regular thing nor is it something I think would be Sony's aim in their timed exclusivity deals since it literally doesn't fit the definition of timed exclusivity terms).

 

[Aguero9320]

When you put “contractual” in the clarification you let the door open

When you put “contractual” in the clarification you let the door open to everything.

So any game already announced can have a possible contractual deal in place.

Future new agreements will be exclusives.

A contract saying what, exactly?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Regardless of what happens, it's going to be fun to come back to this thread a year after TES6 comes out.

We'll probably all be dead by then, though.

 

[THE DUCK]

I'll believe it when I see it. The thought of alienating 100 millions + players seems to go against logic for me.



Luckily these kind of games aren't my cup of tea so I dont really care either way.

Right, cus Sony alienates millions of players every time it exclusively releases God of War, ratchet, uncharted, and gt and Nintendo the same every mario and Zelda game. Insert ginormous rolleyes here.

 

[Bernkastel]

I love how the OP completely missed that point:


I do hope that all Bethesda games (besides live-services and the ones they already have contracts to other platforms) but there's nothing that implies what the OP has put in the title.

As usual Uncle Phil once again doesn't want to give a clear answer.

Mods should change the title IMO. It's missleading because Spencer doesn't say what the OP thinks (or wishes) he says.

It means existing live service games(like ESO) that have legacy on other platforms.

 

[Mercenary09]

When you put “contractual” in the clarification you let the door open to everything.

So any game already announced can have a possible contractual deal in place.

Future new agreements will be exclusives.

Exactly. And people here and other places think that only games with contracts that have been announced to the public exist when that isn't always the case.

 

[Snake29]

So Starfield is confirmed to be exclusive?

 

[Mr.ODST]

This is probably best thing coming from the acquisition, ID Tech 7 is probably best Engine know to mankind currently.

Still blown away by Doom on the Switch, exceptional engine tech

 

[FunkMiller]

Well, this will persuade me to buy a Series X, so worth the 7.5 billion just for that

 

[NickFire]

Legacy games refer to games like Elder Scrolls Online which have had a presence on all platforms for years now. Phil is saying he won't pull games like that from the marketplace for PlayStation just because Microsoft owns it now. Fallout 5 and ES6 have no legacy on any platform as they do not exist yet.

Legacy can mean much more than that. Especially used in the context of future games.

"And even in the future, there might be things that have either contractual things or legacy on different platforms that we'll go do."

By no means does this guarantee anything hits PS. But there is a country mile wide road left open to go do games on a platform where the franchises have been previously.

 

[Banjo64]

A contract saying what, exactly?

What ethomaz thinks happens between a developer and Sony when a game is only in pre-production and is still 4+ years away from release...

 

[Mmnow]

legacy means a presence and a strong fanbase

I think it goes further than that. Legacy to me is one further: Fallout has a legacy on PC, because that's where it was born and that's where its biggest fans are.

There's nothing Bethesda has ever put out that has that sort of connection to PlayStation.

Unless he's talking the very specific software meaning of legacy, in which case he's basically just saying they're not taking New Vegas off PS Now.

The thought of alienating 100 millions + players seems to go against logic for me.

Which current gen console has 100 million+ players?

Added together, there are less than 10 per cent of that across the entire console space that these games are going to exist in. There's plenty of time for people to switch ecosystems in that time.

 

[Aguero9320]

Exactly. And people here and other places think that only games with contracts that have been announced to the public exist when that isn't always the case.

I think if Sony had signed timed exclusivity with Starfield or ES they would have mentioned it... Some of those straws can be sharp, could get a nasty cut clutching them so hard...

 

[reksveks]

Wolfenstein 3 maybe
Indiana Jones maybe

Everything else you have to assume is exclusive. Elder Scroll whilst sold well on PS does not have a legacy on Sony consoles.

 

[LisaMariaMartin]

Exactly. And people here and other places think that only games with contracts that have been announced to the public exist when that isn't always the case.

I guess this is the next delusion people will cling to. At least we left the tables behind.

 

[SLB1904]

''We have games that exist on other platforms, and we're going to go support those games on the platforms they're on. There's communities of players. We love those communities and we'll continue to invest in them. And even in the future, there might be things that have either contractual things or legacy on different platforms that we'll go do.''

 

[akaFullmetal]

We'll that sucks for me. Just got a PS5, I guess I will have to get an xbox or new pc if I want to keep playing fallout whenever the next comes out.

 

[NickFire]

Legacy in this instance more than likely means legacy titles, i.e titles that are already on other platforms that don't fall into the MMORPG space but otherwise could get additional DLC content, like the upcoming Deathloop.

At this point you're reaching to the point of becoming a human centipede with yourself trying to interpret it as something else. Occam's Razor exists for a reason.

If at some point in the future this doesn't turn out to be the case, say a PS5 and/or Switch version of the next DOOM or Elder Scrolls get listed, then you will be proven correct. But the wording today does not suggest that happening and we'd have to wait a ton of time to see if it's the case. Or we can take Occam's Razor and go with the simplest answer based on today's event instead.

I'm not reaching for anything. Phil was talking about future games, not me. "And even in the future, there might be things that have either contractual things or legacy on different platforms that we'll go do." His words, not mine.

 

[Flintty]

Genuinely think we’ll see a native XCloud app on Switch soon (within 24 months), the full-fat shebang.

It is the perfect marriage. Nintendo first party with a cheap way to access all of MS first party and a lot of mature third party games that aren’t ported to the console.

Yeah I wouldn’t be surprised, and I’d be all for it!

 

[Mercenary09]

I think if Sony had signed timed exclusivity with Starfield or ES they would have mentioned it... Some of those straws can be sharp, could get a nasty cut clutching them so hard...

I didn't say that Sony had timed exclusivity did I. Contracts don't always involve that. If the Indiana Jones game for example had a contract signed that it would be multiplatform then they need to fulfill that.

 

[The Alien]

Yeah. What everyone thought....

• Death Loop & Ghost Wire on PS5
• Online games (ESP, F76, etc. multiplat)
• Everything else = wherever GamePass is.

 

[Snake29]

The only game i’m curious about is Starfield. The only game i want to happen is Wolfenstein 3.

 

[AJUMP23]

Looks like I was right. Those business classes of mine have paid off.

 

[Mercenary09]

I guess this is the next delusion people will cling to. At least we left the tables behind.

There's a reason Phil is carefully picking his words when he talks. He isn't a fanboy like some of you. He is wording things so that if something isn't exclusive later like you fanboys think he won't be attacked for it and called a liar.

 

[Gatox]

''We have games that exist on other platforms, and we're going to go support those games on the platforms they're on. There's communities of players. We love those communities and we'll continue to invest in them. And even in the future, there might be things that have either contractual things or legacy on different platforms that we'll go do.''

"But if you're an Xbox customer, the thing I want you to know is this is about delivering great exclusive games for you, that ship on platforms where Game Pass exists"

 

[ManaByte]

I didn't say that Sony had timed exclusivity did I. Contracts don't always involve that. If the Indiana Jones game for example had a contract signed that it would be multiplatform then they need to fulfill that.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

You don't think indiana jones is multiplatform?

 

[Banjo64]

I didn't say that Sony had timed exclusivity did I. Contracts don't always involve that. If the Indiana Jones game for example had a contract signed that it would be multiplatform then they need to fulfill that.

What the fuck do you people think actually happens in the real world? Why would Bathesda sign a contract that states ‘this game is multi platform’? Who the fuck would they even sign that with and what would be the benefit to Bathesda of doing that? If this has happened why haven’t Sony briefed anyone that TeS, Indy and Starfield are coming to PS5? Pro tip; it’s because no such contract has been signed.

 

[FunkMiller]

The best thing about this is that decent competition prevents collusion.

For everyone who is sick of video game company greed, XBox being strong competition to PlayStation is absolutely the best thing.

If Bethesda games all came to Sony as well, the competition wouldn’t be there as much and the collusion would go on. We don’t want Microsoft and Sony in bed together.

As it stands this is going to heat up the whole market, which means cheaper consoles and games. This is a good thing for everyone.

 

[sainraja]

I think it goes further than that. Legacy to me is one further: Fallout has a legacy on PC, because that's where it was born and that's where its biggest fans are.

There's nothing Bethesda has ever put out that has that sort of connection to PlayStation.

Unless he's talking the very specific software meaning of legacy, in which case he's basically just saying they're not taking New Vegas off PS Now.

Which current gen console has 100 million+ players?

Added together, there are less than 10 per cent of that across the entire console space that these games are going to exist in. There's plenty of time for people to switch ecosystems in that time.

Well, since he mentioned that along with saying future titles, I don't think he meant New Vegas. But yeah, he could very well have been referring to PC but I am not so sure about that since they want to be present on PC.

 

[SSfox]

So Spencer still can't just say it clearly if TES6 (or Starfield) will be exclusive or not, as usual with Spencer never clear with his mouth, like with ROTR exclusivity deal.

 

[ethomaz]

A contract saying what, exactly?

Which platforms that game will release..
When you start a game you make deals/contracts to make it happen and that includes all platforms that the game needs to be released.

That is how you get the investment for your game.

 

[Aguero9320]

I think the fact Sony pretended Indiana Jones didn’t exist when it was announced suggests that contract is as mythical as the Ark of the Covenant

 

[ManaByte]

You don't think indiana jones is multiplatform?

No, I mean there aren't binding contracts to force a publisher to make a game multiplatform. There are exclusivity deals, but it's up to a publisher if they want to release a game multiplatform. Sony doesn't have a gun to Bethesda's head forcing them to release Starfield on the PS5 unless Sony paid for exclusivity.

 

[Reality Czar]

Every day is like a new ink blot with this. It’s like platform begging using a crystal ball.

 

[Blond]

Break out the copium for my fellow Sonybros would couldn’t handle the news months ago LOL

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

Another reason why I think Indy is XBox exclusive is because usually a contract between licensors and licensees include a minimum royalty guarantee (either a flat fee or a percentage of sales revenue) then followed by an adjusted percentage of the sales revenue.

I am not sure Lucas would mandate Bethesda to release the game on X or Y platform as they wouldn't care about that. They care about, Bethesda paying them X for the privilege of using the license and then paying them a Y minimum (that can be much bigger if the game is a huge hit) based on the game's sales. Whether Bethesda releases it on 1 or 20 platforms is irrelevant to Lucas. Similar to Sony-Marvel regarding the Spider-Man license on games that they currently have.

We'll see though.

 

[ethomaz]

Exactly. And people here and other places think that only games with contracts that have been announced to the public exist when that isn't always the case.

It can have contracts/deals in place in non announced games too.

But that is very unlikely.

 

[Aguero9320]

That you have the game releasing in a platform.

I could imagine that contract being signed by Sony for exclusivity, but cannot imagine a single circumstance where a developer would sign that for a multiplatform release. It serves them no purpose. Maybe a distribution agreement relating to Sony’s 30% cut, but that wouldn’t be binding on anything except sales on the platform.

 

[Edgelord79]

Kinda bummed for my PS bros but I get it from a business standpoint.

Exclusivity sucks. I'm sure Sony will respond with a plethora of timed/full exclusives.

 

[THE DUCK]

So Spencer still can't just say it clearly if TES6 (or Starfield) will be exclusive or not, as usual with Spencer never clear with his mouth, like with ROTR exclusivity deal.

Error no?

"Glad he was very clear and essentially we now have our answer Outside of already released games or titles like Deathloop and GhostWire Tokyo if you want to play the big future Bethesda games you'll need an Xbox or PC"

 

[reksveks]

No, I mean there aren't binding contracts to force a publisher to make a game multiplatform. There are exclusivity deals, but it's up to a publisher if they want to release a game multiplatform. Sony doesn't have a gun to Bethesda's head forcing them to release Starfield on the PS5 unless Sony paid for exclusivity.

Just about to post this

 

[ethomaz]

What ethomaz thinks happens between a developer and Sony when a game is only in pre-production and is still 4+ years away from release...

Nope.

Contracts are made with investors... Sony can be one of them but it doesn’t need to be Sony at all.

New contracts will be signed with MS aval but contracts already made before MS purchase is the key here... these are what people are asking.