• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Should Microsoft make Bethesda games only on Xbox and PC or continue to support Nintendo and PlayStation by releasing games on those platforms?

Should they share the games with Sony and Nintendo?

  • Yes they should share it.

    Votes: 137 31.0%
  • No keep it for themselves.

    Votes: 305 69.0%

  • Total voters
    442

The_Mike

Banned
Nov 5, 2017
5,332
8,652
760
very little sense in acquire them for that much money and then "share"
We are still at the very first stage of grief:

1. Denial <- Gaf is here
2. Anger <- the (, Bethesda makes crap games anyway people)
3. Bargaining <- some are already here (the ms needs sonys money people)
4. Depression <- a mix between 1 2 and 4 here.
6. Acceptance <- given how long this topic has been discussed I doubt we ever get here.
 
Mar 18, 2020
1,273
3,291
535
We are still at the very first stage of grief:

1. Denial <- Gaf is here
2. Anger <- the (, Bethesda makes crap games anyway people)
3. Bargaining <- some are already here (the ms needs sonys money people)
4. Depression <- a mix between 1 2 and 4 here.
6. Acceptance <- given how long this topic has been discussed I doubt we ever get here.
Acceptance will come sometime in June when every single trailer is announced with that obnoxious 'CONSOLE EXCLUSIVE, WORLD PREMIERE' voice.
 
Oct 14, 2020
38
45
120
Releasing on all platforms for short term gains is a little counterproductive I would have thought. The benefit is attracting more people into the gamepass ecosystem with the view that like other subscription services they become a normalised part of our monthly expenditure (as long as it continues to be maintained as it is now). A somewhat insidious strategy perhaps, but access to a gaming playground for a tenner or so per month becomes part of our lifestyle routine, subconsciously or otherwise (i.e. consciously). That and of course the increase in X-Box consoles out there and associated 3rd party game purchases all add up to what I presume will be far greater revenue in the longer term than simply feeding the competition releases for an immediate return.
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
2,599
8,780
455
Well of course. However, that doesnt change the fact that MS would want to see a return on investment. The hard way would be making Xbox exclusives. We will see if MS have the patience to do it the hard way, or just go the easy route that offer garenteed returns.
Yeah, well said. And that's all there is to it.

MS needs the Xbox division to make a profit, and there are two ways of doing that:

1. The tougher, longer way: Keep all games exclusives and bet on the future.
2. The easier, shorter way: Make games multiplatform and sell as many copies as they can to turn in higher operating profits YoY.

It could go either way. But I think Phil was right when he said it will be "on a case by case basis". There are many factors involved with Bethesda games (the scope of the game, development cost, number of Gamepass susbcribers at a given point of time, # of PlayStation sold in the market, etc.).

It won't be as cut-and-dry that "all Bethesda games will be Xbox exclusives going forward" or "all Bethesda games will also release on PlayStation".

P.S. Before anyone quotes me and says "Well, MS cares about Gamepass subscribers, and it'd be stupid to put their game on PlayStation". I agree, but if Gamepass was the only focus of Xbox (in terms of profit-making), they wouldn't release their games on Steam. Releasing a game on Steam net them roughly the same money that they would get if they release a title on PlayStation.
 

Orpheum

Member
Sep 7, 2015
1,776
1,684
660
Germany
Well i certainly would find it cool to play upcoming Bethesda titles on my PS5 even if i'm not very interested in most of them aside from TES 6

However i don't think that any upcoming games will release on Playstation or Nintendo Platforms. not gonna happen.

If they actually allow it they will release it 2-3 years down the line...but like i said, not gonna happen
 

Bumblebeetuna

Member
Jun 23, 2008
6,864
2,223
1,340
Doesn't really matter to me, I would play them on Xbox regardless. I think it would be a strong sign of faith in the future of Xbox to keep them exclusive, though.

Plus you know if Sony bought Zenimax, all that shit would be permanent exclusive. Hell they probably wouldn't even honor the Deathloop/GT deals if the shoe were on the other foot. I know they are releasing Show on Xbox, but that comes from the MLB, and The Show is loaded with microtransactions and makes sense for Sony to put everywhere. Gotta sell those Stubs
 

Majukun

Member
Jun 19, 2009
12,483
612
1,135
can't unsee the braid passing through her shoulder
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Mistershine.

martino

Member
Apr 25, 2013
6,714
4,649
810
France
to be more precise how i see it:
  1. are ms moves to develop xbox brand ?
  2. are ms moves to strengthen game-pass offering ?
i'm not in secret of the gods but from where i see them they seems to indicate 2 more than 1.
But unlike extreme takes i don't see ms killing entire revenue streams because of some purity of ideology "everything must become service".
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
8,198
8,819
790
Xbox has a huge problem and that is the lack of exklusives. . So yeah they probably should also release on steam please
 

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,377
725
It's all about money. They are all companies in the end, and profit is what makes the world spin.
Then they reversed course. So, since they want that money to keep their world spinning, they might want to sell as many copies of games as they can. No? Gotta get that money they were counting on back somehow...
 

The_Mike

Banned
Nov 5, 2017
5,332
8,652
760
Then they reversed course. So, since they want that money to keep their world spinning, they might want to sell as many copies of games as they can. No? Gotta get that money they were counting on back somehow...
No they didn't. They made the price common so Microsoft and the other devs joined them.
 

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,377
725
Why’d they double the price of gold then?
It's all about money. They are all companies in the end, and profit is what makes the world spin.
Then they reversed course. So, since they want that money to keep their world spinning, they might want to sell as many copies of games as they can. No? Gotta get that money they were counting on back somehow...
This is about gold not game pricing. They reversed course. So, if they did it for money they’ll be replacing that money somehow.
 

PlayStaytion

Member
Dec 22, 2019
457
143
260
I think they had much greater reasons like using their tools and 3d engines to improve their future games , housing big known 3rd party games is really a bad idea.
 

HTK

Member
May 13, 2011
834
1,057
935
Microsoft will do whatever makes sense for their business strategy. I believe there will be titles that are cross-platform while others are not, they will cherry-pick just like Sony is doing with PC.

I don't have an Xbox Series X and don't plan on getting on as things are at the moment, however, if there is content that Microsoft releases that I want, I'll pick up their console especially now since I've decided not to build a PC because of the parts fiasco.
 

martino

Member
Apr 25, 2013
6,714
4,649
810
France
I don't have an Xbox Series X and don't plan on getting on as things are at the moment, however, if there is content that Microsoft releases that I want, I'll pick up their console especially now since I've decided not to build a PC because of the parts fiasco.
yep at least when you find stock console are not at scalper price.
 
Nov 22, 2019
410
732
305
I'm for games being on as many platforms as possible personally.

If you are an exclusive guy though, and enjoy console wars, you have no right to be angry here. Specifically Sony fanboys. If Xbox makes Bethesda games exclusive, and it's possible that they won't, they are only doing what you wanted them to do. It was great when you were getting the exclusives and you were sowing the seeds of how exclusives are necessary to be a viable platform, but now you have to reap the consequences of those seeds when companies decide to compete with exclusives.
 

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,377
725
It was great when you were getting the exclusives and you were sowing the seeds of how exclusives are necessary to be a viable platform, but now you have to reap the consequences of those seeds when companies decide to compete with exclusives.
Who told Microsoft they weren’t allowed to develop exclusives? I don’t think anyone would have any issues with Microsoft creating original IPs exclusively for Xbox.
 

RGB'D

Member
Jul 24, 2020
284
399
280
Who told Microsoft they weren’t allowed to develop exclusives? I don’t think anyone would have any issues with Microsoft creating original IPs exclusively for Xbox.
One could argue that Elder Scrolls was MS (3rd party) exclusive as the first two were MSDOS releases and Morrowind was OG Xbox exclusive. The later games went multiplat... why isn‘t anyone complaining that Ratchet and Clank didn’t go multi platform? Sony didn’t develop the IP, and insomniac only recently became first party. Why is Final Fantasy exclusivity okay? Sony could develop their own JRPG. I’m fine with those staying SONY exclusives, just as Microsoft is fine making these games exclusive. Insomniac is why I bought a PS5, just as Bethesda is a large reason for why I got a Series X. Let’s try not to double standard too much.
 

Leyasu

Member
Apr 25, 2014
6,148
3,297
720
No, they shouldn't and they won't.

Why does this song and dance continue?
 
Last edited:

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,377
725
Let’s try not to double standard too much.
Exactly. You’re always going to be able to cherry pick scenarios. Keep it to first party and established catalogs and draw a line there. Especially since it’s always Spider-Man and now ratchet brought up when insomniac made 1 game for Xbox and one other appeared on it. There’s no standard to fall back on for this move. They can keep this catalog of games that are well established as multi console releases or they can make them exclusives after they release Deathloop and Ghostwire. It’s their choice. But I don’t think anyone is talking about new IPs here or IPs that were developed for Xbox.
 

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,377
725
They folded like a cheap suit under the might of Twitter outrage crowds
It’s amazing really. One minute they have all this money in profits so they don’t need more money, then they raise gold and all of a sudden they’re like any other business and they want money. Then when you bring up the profitability of keeping the games from zenimax multi console like they’ve always been THEN it’s gamepass. I think they have to make these games exclusives after this year’s releases just to keep these people happy. But I’m thinking that they themselves ruined their chances when they complained about the gold doubling. The timing of it was too coincidental to not be related to this purchase.
 

RGB'D

Member
Jul 24, 2020
284
399
280
Exactly. You’re always going to be able to cherry pick scenarios. Keep it to first party and established catalogs and draw a line there. Especially since it’s always Spider-Man and now ratchet brought up when insomniac made 1 game for Xbox and one other appeared on it. There’s no standard to fall back on for this move. They can keep this catalog of games that are well established as multi console releases or they can make them exclusives after they release Deathloop and Ghostwire. It’s their choice. But I don’t think anyone is talking about new IPs here or IPs that were developed for Xbox.
Doom/Fallout/Elderscrolls/Wolfenstein were all MS PC releases before PlayStation existed. It’s not like these franchises have no history of exclusivity to Microsoft. Its not like you can separate MS in the PC space from the console space as totally different entities either. Especially as that relationship and history between Bethesda and Microsoft was cited many times in the acquisition by both parties. And yes MS is going to do whatever they want regardless of what we think, but to conflate it as some sort of slight to gamers because those games won’t be multi-platform is ignoring decades of history.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,022
5,390
540
Xbox won't stop makng hardware because this very hardware is used to develop Game Pass titles in the first place. There is no Game Pass service without Xbox hardware to develop for.

An important point that is often missed. Cloud gaming has to run on something in the cloud and commissioning the custom chips from AMD is going to always be cheaper than picking parts off the shelf. I think consoles will be around for a long time, just possibly with smaller install bases if the casuals eventually move on to streaming.
 

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,377
725
Doom/Fallout/Elderscrolls/Wolfenstein were all MS PC releases before PlayStation existed. It’s not like these franchises have no history of exclusivity to Microsoft. Its not like you can separate MS in the PC space from the console space as totally different entities either. Especially as that relationship and history between Bethesda and Microsoft was cited many times in the acquisition by both parties. And yes MS is going to do whatever they want regardless of what we think, but to conflate it as some sort of slight to gamers because those games won’t be multi-platform is ignoring decades of history.
Bethesda isn’t the only part of the deal. But now all of a sudden it’s not Xbox anymore. Now it’s Microsoft pc. And pre PlayStation now? So PlayStation hadn’t come out and that’s considered a Microsoft exclusive? Hahaha ok.
Yeah, they definitely need to change these games to exclusives. If they don’t they’re going to lose customers who are so angry at this they’ll trade in their systems and cancel their subs. It just happened when they doubled gold and it will happen again.
 

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
13,181
8,759
1,365
If they don't, then it's the biggest mistake they could make as a corporation. The truth of the matter is that Sony IS competition, whether Microsoft wants to admit or not. Being competition does not mean you can't work together with said competition; we've seen it as far back as Sega providing jewel cases to Sony back in 1995 when Sony had a shortage for PS1 Western game releases.

At the end of the day, Microsoft wants to grow revenue and profits, but not at the expense of their own ecosystem. If they bring all or even most of those Zenimax games to other platforms like PS5 Day-and-Date, they lose potential Series sales AND Gamepass subs, because there is little incentive for PlayStation players to consider going with either at that point. Not only that, but Microsoft also loses 30% in profits for all copies sold in the PS ecosystem, AND Microsoft potentially risks losing goodwill with sections of the hardcore/core Xbox community who have been holding out to the platform bolstering its exclusive 1P content.

That's a lot to give up, or potentially give up, simply for more software revenue but potentially only marginally better net profits. If I'm wrong though, well, there will be corrections to be made and I'm not necessarily sure if things will work out for Microsoft the way they believe they will if indeed anything beyond ESO/F'76 and those types of games come to PlayStation and Nintendo, especially Day-and-Date.



No. Make a better argument or don't make one at all.




Quite the irony, isn't it? It's okay for Sony to leave money on the table in not bringing any of their owned content to Xbox/PC platforms because apparently they are a charity and saintly, but greedy Microsoft must absolutely bring their content to platforms they don't own because they are not a charity and can't leave money on the table.

I think people romanticize these corporations way too much xD.


1: By that notion then why don't you pontificate Sony or Nintendo bringing their software to more ecosystems more readily? After all, they are corporations too. They also want to grow their profits.

2: They are among arguably the most popular genre of games in the industry right now; a company able to secure a lot of those types of games as ecosystem exclusives, drives a large amount of potential attention to their ecosystem at the expense of an ecosystem lacking in those types of games.

3: Within reason. If that software and services comes at the expense of their hardware ecosystem and, in the case of Xbox, loyal fanbases in that ecosystem, then they will not pursue it. You should also keep in mind that them bringing native ports of games to PS and Nintendo platforms Day-and-Date with Xbox versions, even if those versions are in Gamepass, destroys a lot of potential subscription growth because that conditions PS/Nintendo gamers to simply buy the games on the platform instead, meaning less Gamepass subs, less consoles sold and less profit on software sales (since they automatically lose 30% profits to Sony and Nintendo).

4: They can only reciprocate by means of which they can realistically do, though. If push came to shove and, say, Sony & Microsoft entered a bidding war for another massive publisher, Microsoft would win if their intent is acquisition at all costs, since they simply have more resources to work with. And really, it's just the kind of game Sony cannot play at the same level, but they should be aware of this because when they (Sony) first entered the industry as a platform holder they leveraged their own resource advantage over competitors like Sega and Nintendo.

5: True, but essentially stealth-asking them to not bother competing in a realistic way whatsoever is also a fool's errand. You assume an intent by stating they want to "own" gaming; basically by insisting a negative connotation because they have the financial means to purchase various companies is an oddly anti-capitalistic stance to take (or at least it's an anti-corporate argument that can easily fall into that designation...not that I'm against a specific form of corporatism in the form of hyper-capitalist corporatism though). You are trying to, basically, use an emotive argument to guilt-trip them into not leveraging their own advantages in the market.

I think you should take a look at gaming history before making these kind of statements, because this is something Sony actually did to Sega. Sega were a much more entrenched company in the gaming industry at the time Sony came out with the PS1. However, Sony did exactly what you're saying Microsoft can't expect to do and be successful: starving 3P support from competitors (particularly Sega, but also Nintendo) through publishing deals and agreements, exclusivity contracts, and leveraging their own fab production plants, assembly pipelines and distribution chains in ways Sega and Nintendo never could.

Except...Sony managed to make that work. And on a pure theoretical basis, ANY company with the resource means to take up such a strategy, could make it work if they really want it to. So ultimately your argument here falls apart.

6: Well it's a good thing they aren't doing that right off the bat, isn't it? After all, Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathproof are still coming to PS5 as timed exclusives, and in the off-chance the Indiana Jones game was already locked for multiplat release beforehand, that will also come to other ecosystems. However, you should also be aware that Microsoft and Zenimax have been having these discussions since 2017. Just something to keep in mind...

Its all about GamePass. Their long-term vision is that service as the central pillar of their business. A hardware agnostic all-you-can-eat subscriber service.
They are spending big because they need to establish it on both console and PC, while making inroads on mobile via XCloud as an adjunct.

Hardware has always been a just a means to an end for MS, and the sooner its minimized as part of the distribution chain the happier they'll be.

The bottom line is that if they can't outsell what the competition is asking $80 for, by offering the same product "free" as an element of their a-la-carte service, they are all kinds of fucked anyway! How much advantage do they need?

And no. Sony didn't starve Sega of product, Sega's key brands all remained staunchly exclusive up until they gave up on the hardware business. What Sony did was get a bug push from grass-roots developers in Europe who'd been stung hard by the inflexible cartridge distribution model of the 16-bit era, whilst also pulling onboard Japanese companies who'd always been SEGA's competitors going back to the heyday of the arcades.

See, that's the double-edged sword of relying upon self-owned signature IP. Namco weren't going to put Tekken on a platform that would naturally prioritize Virtua Fighter over it as the premier 3d fighting game, same deal with Ridge Racer, etc. Its great if you're a Nintendo who can keep your blue-chip franchises perennial, but if those key properties start to lose their luster like for instance Sonic did... you have a major, major problem. That sort of backslide has been evident with MS all generation long, the only exception to the rule being Forza with the Horizon sub-brand holding it up quite admirably.

This is why MS doubling down on WRPG and FPS is so problematic, there's no impetus for companies outside of that ecosystem to put product in a spot where its bound to be overshadowed or out-marketed. Basically, its saying to big third parties like Activision keep your AAA stuff on Playstation, because those guys will actually put their full weight behind promoting it.
 
Last edited:

VulcanRaven

Member
Jan 7, 2018
2,495
2,935
550
I don't know why anyone would vote no. Gamers should hope that the games are on as many consoles as possible.
 
Last edited:

RGB'D

Member
Jul 24, 2020
284
399
280
Bethesda isn’t the only part of the deal. But now all of a sudden it’s not Xbox anymore. Now it’s Microsoft pc. And pre PlayStation now? So PlayStation hadn’t come out and that’s considered a Microsoft exclusive? Hahaha ok.
Yeah, they definitely need to change these games to exclusives. If they don’t they’re going to lose customers who are so angry at this they’ll trade in their systems and cancel their subs. It just happened when they doubled gold and it will happen again.
Keep up the war i guess. You went from rationale conversation to console warring rhetoric and not worth further engagement. I’ll play these releases on Series X/PC and Sony first party releases on my PS5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619

devilNprada

Member
May 2, 2019
1,075
1,246
390
My opinion is they paid the money they should make them exclusive....
I do believe a game like ESO 6 will sell devices and Gamepass subscribtions.

Having said that:

I do not believe people will keep subscriptions. If they ever want to get the numbers they often talk about; they need loosen up number of simultaneous account user restrictions.

$15 is a lot for one user if gaming is not your primary source of entertainment.

I would absolutely not continuously subscribe to (Netflix, HBO, Nintendo online, Office 365, Disney, Amazon Prime and every other thing I'm subscribed to) if I could not share my account...

Go ahead bring up game sharing as if it as at all the same thing!
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,022
5,390
540
Oh. Then why did they abort that plan in 6 hours?
I guess they don’t want gold users moving to gamepass anymore.

I think we all know the ensuing PR nightmare was responsible for that. The same logic you use there could be applied to them instituting the increase because they were desperate for cash. Did their urgent need for cash suddenly disappear because the internet mob attacked?

Plus, if they really needed to get extra cash out of Gold, they would not have grandfathered all of the existing Gold users. All you had to do to keep the old price was add a CC to your account and enable auto-renewal before your existing subscription expired. This was just to push new customers away from Gold which was scuttled when they quickly realized the move was more likely to push new users on to PS.
 
Last edited:
Aug 28, 2019
4,542
9,376
650
www.instagram.com
Good to see you're so intellectually engaged in the discussion.
Yes, they should. It makes no business sense to hold off Bethesda games for Sony platforms. The reason is quite simple:
The amount of customers they will gain from exclusivity will be nowhere near the amount of customers they will lose that would have otherwise bought the games but don't care enough to switch platforms.
The customers that would have switched are the ones that care enough for the IP's. You can also gain those customers by providing exlusive content to Xbox versions of the games. That way, you get a win win: attract those to the Xbox ecosystem that care enough without alienating the potential of the Playstation market.
That's fair and good in an ideal world, but we're talking business realities. By this logic, should not Sony provide their 1P games onto Xbox and Nintendo platforms? After all, prior to Insomniac the Spiderman games were multiplat

By this logic, why do so many people claim one of the PlayStation's greatest strengths to be its exclusives? And yes, they do also include 3P games on the platform as well, including 3P games that are part of franchises which have historically been multiplatform (Final Fantasy (arguably, considering they were establishing a trend of being multiplat in the 7th-gen), Street Fighter, etc.). So again, where is your equal accountability on both sides of this equation?

"The customers that would have switched are the ones that care enough for the IPs", which means that where the IPs go, the customers will most likely follow. Microsoft want more customers; it doesn't matter if they build the IP from scratch or buy the owners of them (they are doing both). Customers are customers at the end of the day and the end justifies the means when it comes to highly competitive business markets. You're basically insinuating that because, in your opinion, prior Microsoft IPs weren't enough to get customers to "switch" (btw there doesn't actually have to be any "switching" going on; most gamers engage in multiple platform ecosystems simultaneously believe it or not ;) ), that they should not bother with creating or purchasing, but particularly purchasing, IP that they know will have that draw because....why, exactly?

Why basically say they should not leverage one of their biggest assets to gain an advantage, when companies like Sony have done the exact same thing throughout their time in the industry? You guys are making this into some weird ethical argument that only applies to one company out of the three when all three are businesses and are neither charities nor moral bastions to look up to. They want to earn money, and as long as the methods are legal, they will utilize them. End of story.

We've already seen what timed exclusive DLC content does for platforms because we saw a lot of it during 360/PS3 gen (in favor of the former) and again this past gen (in favor of PS4). But that only really makes a dent if you're already the market leader, which currently Microsoft clearly are not. And while I'm not necessarily saying they WANT to be the market leader (at least in units sold terms), they probably want to push their profits much higher because they know it is possible, and timed exclusive DLC content (or even Day-and-Date in Gamepass, if the same games are provided on competitor products at the same time) is simply not going to be enough for them to do that.

How that alienates the PlayStation market, I don't know, nor particularly care, and I don't think Microsoft cares much, either. Because I strongly doubt Sony cares about alienating the Xbox and PC markets with locking down timed exclusives, or Nintendo cares about alienating other markets by keeping all of their 1P content exclusive to only their systems. I also think you underestimate the actual number of single-platform owners who aren't necessarily married to that platform or ecosystem, i.e if the content they want is on a different product, they will simply...buy the other product alongside the one they already have, and likely switch back and forth between them as they feel. That's actually the case with the vast majority of gamers; only a very small fringe of the most hardcore are weirdly adamant about sticking to one very specific platform/brand/ecosystem and doing everything in their power to keep it that way (oh it is the purest of ironies).

It’s not a binary option. Gamepass can stand on it own by providing great value. Indeed, all bathesda games day 1 included in the sub is an enticing proposition in its own right. This should attract subscribers.

The question then arises, will Sony fans pack away their PS5’s and move? Some will, but millions won’t. Those that don’t move continue to represent a significant market of which going untapped is leaving revenue on the table.

Revenue that can help keep gamepass price low for example, or more content, etc.

The smart bet is on timed releases. This gives gamepass even more perceived value, while still being able to rake it on the back end.

Except none of this is actually particularly true.

"Gamepass can stand on its own by providing great value." Value as in what, exactly? If you mean in keeping it super-cheap or the $1-for-3-years deals, those are not sustainable. Eventually they will come to an end. If you mean value as in having the Bethesda/Zenimax games there Day 1 along with a lot of 3P content, then the latter of that may not be sustainable if Microsoft wants to eventually maximize revenue and profit from the service (they have to pay 3P publishers to put the games on the service).

Having the Bethesda games there Day 1 as an incentive cannot work in a vacuum, if those games are also on PlayStation day-and-date (albeit as not part of a service). Why? Because we are still talking the early part of the console generation, so we are dealing with mainly hardcore and core gamer adopters, who are not particularly fussed with spending money on a game they know they are going to play for a long time, which Bethesda games tend to fit the bill of. So for those type of games specifically, it actually makes more sense to keep them ecosystem-exclusive because the primary adopters and early adopters of those type of games are not particularly against paying for those games on a competitor product/ecosystem if they are also provided there (price isn't necessarily an issue for them).

"The question then arises, will Sony fans pack away their PS5’s and move? Some will, but millions won’t." This is, quite simply, console warrior thinking. You guys are very ardent on a false reality that the vast majority of gamers are single-platform gamers, and religiously married to a single brand. They aren't. They will go where the games go, but that doesn't mean one platform has to suffer simply for the other to grow. That's the part in all of this you guys constantly miss, and it's not like 7th-gen was all that long ago, either (arguably the best example of what I'm describing here; even in the handheld space PSP did very well with 80+ million units).

The amount of gamers you think would feel indifferent or jaded enough to not go to another platform where the game they want to play is on, is actually quite small. Don't act like 120 million people bought PS4s for simply one game or one type of game (outside of potentially GTA5). The point of locking specific types of games, like the kind Bethesda generally make genre-wise, as platform/ecosystem exclusives is to target a slice of a competitor's userbase and entice them to invest into your own. Not even necessarily exclusively, but as a supplementary it would work as well because at that point both ecosystems are now benefiting instead of simply just one.

Your argument about "leaving revenue on the table", to keep Gamepass prices low etc., is illogical. Again, we're talking about specific types of gamers (in terms of gamer type and genre taste) when it comes to Bethesda-style games; THESE people are not fussed about spending money outright on a game if that game is on their current preferred platform/ecosystem (PlayStation in this case). And because of that, if they buy the game on PlayStation out of convenience, that not only potentially means one less sale of that game on Xbox and/or PC, but also means one less potential Gamepass subscriber, plus losing 30% in profit for each PlayStation copy sold.

A pretty big loss of advantage for Microsoft that stunts growth of their subscription service, can negatively impact console sales (even though they keep saying they don't care about units sold, they know that console sales are still important even towards Gamepass, let alone in general) and also generate bad will from hardcore/core fans of the Xbox platform who decided to invest in the new consoles on the promise of 1P content in general that would set it apart from competitors (and not simply a means of accessing that 1P content which is otherwise available on other console platforms).

Hmm not sure to be honest. I mean yes, sure SONY is currently a competitor. But Microsoft has a long term strategy and it is clear that this strategy is not console dependent. Hell, this will be probably the last real console generation (maybe one more). I would not be surprised at all if Microsoft announces an app for gamepass that will end up on SONY´s ecosystem.

Franchises like Fallout, Skyrim and Doom are beloved by millions of people. Not bringing them to all the fans possible would be a disastrous move. And I doubt that people who are usually SONY fanboys would buy an XBOX just for that. Microsoft is 100% all-in on the Gamepass model. It doesn't matter where you play, as long it is their ecosystem. This is the end game and this is where all the money is.

In an ideal world, Gamepass will be accessible through all mobile devices, a smart TV app and all other platforms that would make sense. I don´t say this will happen over night, but I´m sure this is something that will happen in the next 5-8 years.

Hmm, interesting. So tell me then, when did Sony approve of a native Gamepass app on PlayStation consoles? Did I miss the news sometime over the course of the week?

Truth is they haven't. However, Microsoft already have a means of providing Gamepass on PlayStation (and Nintendo Switch) that pretty much circumvents needing a native app; they are already working on a browser workaround for iOS devices, and since that will be browser-based, theoretically any internet-connected device with a built-in browser should also be able to access Gamepass via this method.

Yes it is not a replacement for natively playing the games (it'd also mean you'd need GPU), but it's a backdoor essentially and if PlayStation & Nintendo gamers really want to play those games, but for various reasons don't want to buy a MS system, nor play on their PC or their smartphone, then they could technically do it through the browser via Xcloud streaming. So in a way, yes it seems like Microsoft are fully committed to the Gamepass model, but that in no way actually means they need to release these games on PlayStation (which would contradict commitment to the GP model, anyway).

Your 5-8 years estimate can be trimmed down 1, maybe 2 years tops, going by their efforts with a browser-based Gamepass/Xcloud access point already in the works for iOS (and surely will be accessible through other browsers too, including those Sony and Nintendo use for their systems).

"Franchises like Fallout, Skyrim and Doom are beloved by millions of people. Not bringing them to all the fans possible would be a disastrous move."

Yeah, kinda like when Street Fighter 5 became a PlayStation console exclusive. But even though that game literally had a disastrous launch, it's very hard to try saying it was a "disaster" in terms of brand IP goodwill, now was it? Because guess what all the SF4 players who were on 360 did? They simply purchased PS4s to continue with SFV instead.

So why suddenly do you not think this would be something they do if Fallout, Skyrim, Doom etc. happen to go Xbox/PC-exclusive? And better yet, where does it say that people suddenly buying those means less sales of PlayStation 5 units? Surely if Sony's own actual 1P exclusives are strong enough draws as everyone says they are (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic; I genuinely like a lot of their 1P content and R&C: Rift Apart is looking to be GOTY material IMHO....though TLOU2 can kind of go suck rocks :p), then they would still be able to push sales even if those Bethesda games are no longer on their platform...right?

Personally I am not even of the opinion literally every Bethesda/Zenimax game would suddenly become Xbox/PC-exclusive. Literal service games like ESO and Fallout '76 (and their sequels) will probably continue to have PlayStation versions, which makes sense. And potentially smaller games, like whatever is their next Death Loop or Ghostwire:Tokyo equivalent, I can see those being day-and-date between Xbox and PlayStation. However, the biggest games like the three you mention? IMHO Microsoft would have to be actively against their own self-interests to make those day-and-date with PlayStation or even Nintendo platforms, as that hurts Xbox install base growth and also Gamepass subscription rates, plus they lose 30% off the top in profits on those ecosystems, while getting very little or (in the case of Nintendo) nothing in return WRT Sony/Nintendo 1P content on Xbox/PC platforms and/or Gamepass.

At best, if such games are to come to other platforms, it's probably best to expect a 2-3 year gap in ports between Xbox/PC and other platform versions at the least, or potentially longer in some cases in all honesty. PlayStation/Nintendo gamers who can't wait that long still have a lot of options: buy a Series platform, play on PC, or play on a smart device like their phone/tablet etc. through Gamepass & Xcloud. Day-and-date of something like the next Skyrim or Doom with PlayStation/Switch would be a showing of vote of no confidence in Microsoft's own timeline for growth in their own ecosystem, especially if they get nothing in return from Sony and Nintendo when it comes to 1P content from them on Xbox and PC (including through Gamepass).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Forsythia

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
9,166
10,158
980
I think we all know the ensuing PR nightmare was responsible for that. The same logic you use there could be applied to them instituting the increase because they were desperate for cash. Did their urgent need for cash suddenly disappear because the internet mob attacked?

Plus, if they really needed to get extra cash out of Gold, they would not have grandfathered all of the existing Gold users. All you had to do to keep the old price was add a CC to your account and enable auto-renewal before your existing subscription expired. This was just to push new customers away from Gold which was scuttled when they quickly realized the move was more likely to push new users on to PS.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think dismissing profit as a motivating factor is making an excuse for them without any basis to do so. I do strongly believe that they hoped it would drive all new customers to GP for sure. But that begs the question of why go about it in such an extreme manner? Best values in x,y,x should sell themselves, so why practically kill off Gold to sell it?

And on the topic of grandfathering, how do we know that wasn't intended to be temporary just to minimize the backlash?
 

RGB'D

Member
Jul 24, 2020
284
399
280
Huh?

Lucky you, you can get Ghostwire and Deathloop early and play them on your PS5.
I said MS making these games exclusive isn’t a slight to gamers and it shouldn’t considered so like you are arguing. I also argued your point that since these games are multi platform they should stay that way by giving context that showed a longstanding history between Bethesda and Microsoft including previous exclusivity. Your response was console warring rhetoric that XBox would be be hemorrhaging users. And honestly I will play those games (Deathloop and Ghostwire) but will wait until they come to Gamepass.

At 70$ a pop, I am only going to buy games that I won’t get on gamepass like Returnal, and Ratchet and Clank because it doesn’t really make sense for me to spend 140$ on something I can wait to play that is included in my subscription (and after these two games, everything else is day and date on Gamepass). Also Microsoft reinvigorated their stake in PC gaming last gen and have a rich history in PC gaming so what exactly is the stretch including PC in the XBox conversation. I mean it is an integral pillar of their current approach.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
10,360
23,636
815
Good to see you're so intellectually engaged in the discussion.

That's fair and good in an ideal world, but we're talking business realities. By this logic, should not Sony provide their 1P games onto Xbox and Nintendo platforms? After all, prior to Insomniac the Spiderman games were multiplat

By this logic, why do so many people claim one of the PlayStation's greatest strengths to be its exclusives? And yes, they do also include 3P games on the platform as well, including 3P games that are part of franchises which have historically been multiplatform (Final Fantasy (arguably, considering they were establishing a trend of being multiplat in the 7th-gen), Street Fighter, etc.). So again, where is your equal accountability on both sides of this equation?

"The customers that would have switched are the ones that care enough for the IPs", which means that where the IPs go, the customers will most likely follow. Microsoft want more customers; it doesn't matter if they build the IP from scratch or buy the owners of them (they are doing both). Customers are customers at the end of the day and the end justifies the means when it comes to highly competitive business markets. You're basically insinuating that because, in your opinion, prior Microsoft IPs weren't enough to get customers to "switch" (btw there doesn't actually have to be any "switching" going on; most gamers engage in multiple platform ecosystems simultaneously believe it or not ;) ), that they should not bother with creating or purchasing, but particularly purchasing, IP that they know will have that draw because....why, exactly?

Why basically say they should not leverage one of their biggest assets to gain an advantage, when companies like Sony have done the exact same thing throughout their time in the industry? You guys are making this into some weird ethical argument that only applies to one company out of the three when all three are businesses and are neither charities nor moral bastions to look up to. They want to earn money, and as long as the methods are legal, they will utilize them. End of story.

We've already seen what timed exclusive DLC content does for platforms because we saw a lot of it during 360/PS3 gen (in favor of the former) and again this past gen (in favor of PS4). But that only really makes a dent if you're already the market leader, which currently Microsoft clearly are not. And while I'm not necessarily saying they WANT to be the market leader (at least in units sold terms), they probably want to push their profits much higher because they know it is possible, and timed exclusive DLC content (or even Day-and-Date in Gamepass, if the same games are provided on competitor products at the same time) is simply not going to be enough for them to do that.

How that alienates the PlayStation market, I don't know, nor particularly care, and I don't think Microsoft cares much, either. Because I strongly doubt Sony cares about alienating the Xbox and PC markets with locking down timed exclusives, or Nintendo cares about alienating other markets by keeping all of their 1P content exclusive to only their systems. I also think you underestimate the actual number of single-platform owners who aren't necessarily married to that platform or ecosystem, i.e if the content they want is on a different product, they will simply...buy the other product alongside the one they already have, and likely switch back and forth between them as they feel. That's actually the case with the vast majority of gamers; only a very small fringe of the most hardcore are weirdly adamant about sticking to one very specific platform/brand/ecosystem and doing everything in their power to keep it that way (oh it is the purest of ironies).



Except none of this is actually particularly true.

"Gamepass can stand on its own by providing great value." Value as in what, exactly? If you mean in keeping it super-cheap or the $1-for-3-years deals, those are not sustainable. Eventually they will come to an end. If you mean value as in having the Bethesda/Zenimax games there Day 1 along with a lot of 3P content, then the latter of that may not be sustainable if Microsoft wants to eventually maximize revenue and profit from the service (they have to pay 3P publishers to put the games on the service).

Having the Bethesda games there Day 1 as an incentive cannot work in a vacuum, if those games are also on PlayStation day-and-date (albeit as not part of a service). Why? Because we are still talking the early part of the console generation, so we are dealing with mainly hardcore and core gamer adopters, who are not particularly fussed with spending money on a game they know they are going to play for a long time, which Bethesda games tend to fit the bill of. So for those type of games specifically, it actually makes more sense to keep them ecosystem-exclusive because the primary adopters and early adopters of those type of games are not particularly against paying for those games on a competitor product/ecosystem if they are also provided there (price isn't necessarily an issue for them).

"The question then arises, will Sony fans pack away their PS5’s and move? Some will, but millions won’t." This is, quite simply, console warrior thinking. You guys are very ardent on a false reality that the vast majority of gamers are single-platform gamers, and religiously married to a single brand. They aren't. They will go where the games go, but that doesn't mean one platform has to suffer simply for the other to grow. That's the part in all of this you guys constantly miss, and it's not like 7th-gen was all that long ago, either (arguably the best example of what I'm describing here; even in the handheld space PSP did very well with 80+ million units).

The amount of gamers you think would feel indifferent or jaded enough to not go to another platform where the game they want to play is on, is actually quite small. Don't act like 120 million people bought PS4s for simply one game or one type of game (outside of potentially GTA5). The point of locking specific types of games, like the kind Bethesda generally make genre-wise, as platform/ecosystem exclusives is to target a slice of a competitor's userbase and entice them to invest into your own. Not even necessarily exclusively, but as a supplementary it would work as well because at that point both ecosystems are now benefiting instead of simply just one.

Your argument about "leaving revenue on the table", to keep Gamepass prices low etc., is illogical. Again, we're talking about specific types of gamers (in terms of gamer type and genre taste) when it comes to Bethesda-style games; THESE people are not fussed about spending money outright on a game if that game is on their current preferred platform/ecosystem (PlayStation in this case). And because of that, if they buy the game on PlayStation out of convenience, that not only potentially means one less sale of that game on Xbox and/or PC, but also means one less potential Gamepass subscriber, plus losing 30% in profit for each PlayStation copy sold.

A pretty big loss of advantage for Microsoft that stunts growth of their subscription service, can negatively impact console sales (even though they keep saying they don't care about units sold, they know that console sales are still important even towards Gamepass, let alone in general) and also generate bad will from hardcore/core fans of the Xbox platform who decided to invest in the new consoles on the promise of 1P content in general that would set it apart from competitors (and not simply a means of accessing that 1P content which is otherwise available on other console platforms).



Hmm, interesting. So tell me then, when did Sony approve of a native Gamepass app on PlayStation consoles? Did I miss the news sometime over the course of the week?

Truth is they haven't. However, Microsoft already have a means of providing Gamepass on PlayStation (and Nintendo Switch) that pretty much circumvents needing a native app; they are already working on a browser workaround for iOS devices, and since that will be browser-based, theoretically any internet-connected device with a built-in browser should also be able to access Gamepass via this method.

Yes it is not a replacement for natively playing the games (it'd also mean you'd need GPU), but it's a backdoor essentially and if PlayStation & Nintendo gamers really want to play those games, but for various reasons don't want to buy a MS system, nor play on their PC or their smartphone, then they could technically do it through the browser via Xcloud streaming. So in a way, yes it seems like Microsoft are fully committed to the Gamepass model, but that in no way actually means they need to release these games on PlayStation (which would contradict commitment to the GP model, anyway).

Your 5-8 years estimate can be trimmed down 1, maybe 2 years tops, going by their efforts with a browser-based Gamepass/Xcloud access point already in the works for iOS (and surely will be accessible through other browsers too, including those Sony and Nintendo use for their systems).

"Franchises like Fallout, Skyrim and Doom are beloved by millions of people. Not bringing them to all the fans possible would be a disastrous move."

Yeah, kinda like when Street Fighter 5 became a PlayStation console exclusive. But even though that game literally had a disastrous launch, it's very hard to try saying it was a "disaster" in terms of brand IP goodwill, now was it? Because guess what all the SF4 players who were on 360 did? They simply purchased PS4s to continue with SFV instead.

So why suddenly do you not think this would be something they do if Fallout, Skyrim, Doom etc. happen to go Xbox/PC-exclusive? And better yet, where does it say that people suddenly buying those means less sales of PlayStation 5 units? Surely if Sony's own actual 1P exclusives are strong enough draws as everyone says they are (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic; I genuinely like a lot of their 1P content and R&C: Rift Apart is looking to be GOTY material IMHO....though TLOU2 can kind of go suck rocks :p), then they would still be able to push sales even if those Bethesda games are no longer on their platform...right?

Personally I am not even of the opinion literally every Bethesda/Zenimax game would suddenly become Xbox/PC-exclusive. Literal service games like ESO and Fallout '76 (and their sequels) will probably continue to have PlayStation versions, which makes sense. And potentially smaller games, like whatever is their next Death Loop or Ghostwire:Tokyo equivalent, I can see those being day-and-date between Xbox and PlayStation. However, the biggest games like the three you mention? IMHO Microsoft would have to be actively against their own self-interests to make those day-and-date with PlayStation or even Nintendo platforms, as that hurts Xbox install base growth and also Gamepass subscription rates, plus they lose 30% off the top in profits on those ecosystems, while getting very little or (in the case of Nintendo) nothing in return WRT Sony/Nintendo 1P content on Xbox/PC platforms and/or Gamepass.

At best, if such games are to come to other platforms, it's probably best to expect a 2-3 year gap in ports between Xbox/PC and other platform versions at the least, or potentially longer in some cases in all honesty. PlayStation/Nintendo gamers who can't wait that long still have a lot of options: buy a Series platform, play on PC, or play on a smart device like their phone/tablet etc. through Gamepass & Xcloud. Day-and-date of something like the next Skyrim or Doom with PlayStation/Switch would be a showing of vote of no confidence in Microsoft's own timeline for growth in their own ecosystem, especially if they get nothing in return from Sony and Nintendo when it comes to 1P content from them on Xbox and PC (including through Gamepass).
Don’t make me read all that