Think for once. Why pay $7.5 billion and still release on other platforms after existing contracts are up when you could've paid $0 and Zenimax would remain multiplatform anyway? Doesn't make any sense does it?
Xbox, PC and Xcloud.
Exactly; and if they wanted timed exclusivity on EVERY Zenimax game for the gen, it would have costed them a lot less than $7.5 billion, too.
Common sense on this topic seems to be too hard for some folks xD.
Ne personally I'm not asking, I view it from a business standpoint in now way does the acquisition make sense unless M$ makes money off it. I don't see M$ making money off the Zenimax acquisition. I see the big games becoming multiplat.
I have no plans to buy a PS5 because I love multiplayer games Sony has to step it up in that area for me to go to PS.
So do you see Disney making money off the Marvel acquisition? The Fox acquisition? Yes, yes they are. And that's a company with a much smaller net worth and resources than Microsoft (I don't know who this M$ is, btw?).
Can you point to any financial data to support this idea that the only way Microsoft can make back the money from the Zenimax purchase by bringing every major game to Sony and Nintendo platforms? Take as long as you need.
well i was bummed when sony made spider-man exclusive and it didn't even come to pc and now i'm bummed microsoft is not going to release elder scrolls 6 on playstation, all the platform exclusivity war does is negatively effect us, call me what you want but i'm only playing games on linux and probably couldn't even afford to buy these games even if there was no exclusivity but i'm against the whole idea as it limits gamer's choice.
to people that are happy some other gamer can't play a game you have access to i say, careful what you wish for because it might happen to your favorite franchise next.
Sorry to break it to you but these feelings you have don't really mean much of anything in the grand scheme of things. Game consoles aren't the only products that leverage exclusive content to draw people in. All the streaming services do it: let me know when we're gonna get Loki, Shang-Chi, The Eternals etc. available for streaming on HBO Max and Netflix, especially Day 1. I'll wait.
Even focusing just on consoles, exclusives have been a thing as long as the industry itself. They're what companies like Atari, Nintendo, SEGA, SNK, Sony and Microsoft (among others) have used to draw people into their ecosystems. Games for multiple gens have had to make decisions on what games they'd be able to play and which ones they couldn't based on what consoles they'd be able to buy. And they managed with those compromises.
You'll be able to do the same. Does it suck? Yes. But we already have to make compromises in all other areas of our lives, why would gaming be any different? And it's not really about what people "wish" are exclusive or not, it just is what it is. In your specific case, you apparently already HAVE a PC and virtually every Zenimax game is going to be on PC via Steam or such, so you'll have a way to play those on PC and most likely without even needing to sub to GamePass to do so.
Very odd decision if it is an Xbox/PC exclusive.
Before I'm attacked, let me just say that I'll be getting it regardless (on XSX), so this isn't a fanboy comment.
Elder Scrolls has been a huge hit on PS and also the Switch. I know people think that making it an Xbox exclusive translates into more consoles sold, but ESVI is so far away that this generation will be in its twilight by the time it's released. At that point, we may have a new Nintendo console (Switch 2?) and the PS5 could be approaching 100 million consoles sold or more. That's potentially a lot of money to leave on the table by keeping it MS exclusive.
Final Fantasy was a huge hit on the NES and SNES (especially in Japan). I know people thought making it a PS1 exclusive would've translated to more consoles sold (it did), but FF VII was already shown in early form for the N64 and by the time it'd of released it'd be too early in 5th gen for PS1 to have any brand name to overpower Nintendo especially in terms of JRPGs. At that point, PS1 would only be out for little over two years in Japan, and SFC was still selling gangbusters in Japan. That was potentially a lot of money to leave on the table by not continuing by bringing FF VII to N64 exclusively, or especially at all.
See, there's already been historical equivalents to your idea here going back decades, and in those examples (like the one just mentioned), the "risky" option ended up winning out. That's more than enough real world, historical data to point to in order to suddenly fearmonger that the "riskier" option for Microsoft in this case, for some phantom reason people can never back up with examples or data that's of similar type and pertinence, is a terrible decision
Then there is the fact that Microsoft really don't care about consoles.
This is a lie; every console means a potential user buying software and services for that console in their ecosystem. That includes 3P games, of which Microsoft gets 30% cut on each sale. The consoles are the main source by far for Xbox Live Gold subscriptions, which they literally can't pull on PC due to the nature of free online there.
They absolutely still care about console sales, even if they've tried making statements to hint the opposite. If they didn't care, they would not have produced and released new consoles whatsoever.
They only care about selling software and subscriptions.
Well ultimately, yes. But this extends to Sony and Nintendo as well; they all mainly make money off the software and subscriptions, so nothing's gained by trying to isolate this as a point only specific to Microsoft.
If the aim is to make the 7billion back that they paid for Bethesda (not including the thousands of extra staff that need paying, general running of office's and other expenses), then making sure one of the biggest multiplats of all time stays multiplat would be a good way to recoup costs.
It's an option, but not even the best one. Is there a similar concern here for Sony, knowing some of their 1P games may approach $200 million in production costs going by Shawn Layden's speculations? Or is Layden's thoughts suddenly "irrelevant" even though he ran PlayStation for several years and has 30 years of experience in the industry? (I'm just bringing up Layden as a reference point)
By this notion, should Sony not make those games multiplat to recoup costs, or is the response to that "they have a larger install base"? Because if that's the answer, then the immediate point to bring up in response is "how do you think they generated that larger install base?". According to many, that answer is "Exclusives.". You know, the games they don't make multplat for other competitor game consoles.
So Microsoft's answer to recoup their investment is to take away the power of using those games as exclusive content and make them multiplat on other gaming consoles, and handicap their ability to build up their ecosystem install base (hardware, subscriptions, etc.) as a result? When Sony will likely end up spending near $2 billion this gen themselves in producing multiple massive AAA 1P games (let alone 3P exclusivity contracts, not factored into that number), has way less recurring revenue streams as a corporation, and have multiple other expenses to account for similar to Microsoft (employee salaries, benefits, various bills, etc.), shouldn't this apply to them as well?
However, I think there is a way Microsoft could afford to make ES6 an MS exclusive and still make bank.......
Gamepass exclusive.
What I mean is the game is only available with a Gamepass sub and not available to buy digitally/physically, kinda like some shows/films are exclusive to Netflix, Prime, Disney etc. Make it so ES6 can only be played with a Gamepass sub and millions upon millions would sign up .
Options are good, but to really make bank Microsoft should make ESVI and all other exclusive games only available via Gamepass.
This is a horrible idea. One of the inherit values of GamePass is that you're NOT locked into only being able to stream the game if you have an Xbox or PC as your device. That's one of the big benefits not present with services like PS Now, and you want to get rid of it?
Your idea, btw, would
still lock those games out from being multiplat i.e available on PlayStation, because Sony would have to allow GamePass on their system, and currently that is absolutely not happening. Microsoft could potentially make a backdoor option i.e browser-based, but Sony (and Nintendo) could just cut that option off however they feel like.
So your idea not only still keeps those games off gaming platforms not Xbox or PC (in terms of native or streaming options), but also ends up
hurting Xbox and PC players, GamePass or not, because the option of using GamePass as a supplement for trying the game out before buying it (physical or digital) is now gone; their only option would be streaming-only, and for the absolute best experience, that isn't going to be the preferred method for several more years.
Isn't this a bit pre-emptive? Lot can change in the 5-7 years its gonna take for Elder Scrolls to come out.
Are people bored?
Even if they said Elder Scrolls was coming to PS5 eventually...wouldn't one still have to take this with a huge grain of salt? Shit changes.
Deathloop was supposed to be PS5 and PC exclusive...to my knowledge that's no longer the case right? Of course there was 7 billion dollars shoved somewhere in there, but who's counting?
Okay? Almost anything can happen in the net 5-7 years. Sony's 1P games could severely underperform and be commercial failures. Nintendo's next Switch could be another Wii U. SEGA could come back with Dreamcast 2 (I would actually welcome this one). COD could get destroyed by Battlefield. Nintendo could make an ecchi-hentai Pokemon RPG.
There's no point talking about things in possibilities, because possibilities are limitless. In terms of probability, there's very little chance TES6 becomes a multiplat release, same goes for any of the other future Zenimax/Bethesda AAA games that aren't MMOs. This is the most logical conclusion when looking at financial capacities of the company, their resources, mission statements (and means to accomplish them), etc.
IMO there is no reason to take a pessimistic perspective on this (i.e in terms of these games suddenly becoming multiplat) when not bothering to take similar perspectives for content from other platform holders, regardless if you're trying to reference financial revenues/profits (and I do mean that explicitly, not simply less relevant things like consoles sold) or critical reception.