• 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

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,016
5,378
540
And on the topic of grandfathering, how do we know that wasn't intended to be temporary just to minimize the backlash?

Companies can certainly change their mind on policies. But at the time of this change, they specifically stated that you could continue to auto-renew at whatever term/rate you were currently subscribed to.

As far as why kill Gold, I assume that MS looks at Gold as a dying product with GP being the better long-term play. This is a reasonable expectation in the current climate. When MS launched Live they were offering a streamlined service that offered features not found anywhere else (free online on PC was not nearly as feature rich or centrally localized) thus making it easy to charge a fee. This was still true during most of the 360 gen, but moving towards X1 and now the series line, what features are they offering (besides the free software) that are not being offered for free on PC by Valve, Epic, and even MS themselves? Whereas GP has a much stronger value proposition to it, making it a safer long-term play. They don't want to kill gold and just lose those subscribers though, they'd prefer to "kill" Gold by folding those users into GPU. Technically, Gold still exists in that scenario, but buyers would really be looking to GP when looking at the value of what would be returned - with Gold just being there for the ride. Plus the extra $5/mo., no business will turn that down.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
8,972
9,905
940
Companies can certainly change their mind on policies. But at the time of this change, they specifically stated that you could continue to auto-renew at whatever term/rate you were currently subscribed to.

As far as why kill Gold, I assume that MS looks at Gold as a dying product with GP being the better long-term play. This is a reasonable expectation in the current climate. When MS launched Live they were offering a streamlined service that offered features not found anywhere else (free online on PC was not nearly as feature rich or centrally localized) thus making it easy to charge a fee. This was still true during most of the 360 gen, but moving towards X1 and now the series line, what features are they offering (besides the free software) that are not being offered for free on PC by Valve, Epic, and even MS themselves? Whereas GP has a much stronger value proposition to it, making it a safer long-term play. They don't want to kill gold and just lose those subscribers though, they'd prefer to "kill" Gold by folding those users into GPU. Technically, Gold still exists in that scenario, but buyers would really be looking to GP when looking at the value of what would be returned - with Gold just being there for the ride. Plus the extra $5/mo., no business will turn that down.
I do not share your speculation that they viewed it as a dying product. There is no data that I know of to suggest it was not easy money for them, nor to suggest it was hindering console sales. I am still with you on the theory they wanted to drive people into gold, but I think that unless proven otherwise, we should stick to the simple and obvious reasoning as to why they would do that. And to me the simple and obvious reason was to increase revenue coming in from GP. Either for straight up profit or reduced losses (on paper), and/or to make the balance sheets look better on what GP offers to shareholders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatmarco

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,016
5,378
540
^ Gold subscribers fell a lot moving from 360 to X1, so there is definitely data points there for that. Though the fall really wasn't from lack of interest, but just the changes brought about by "home Gold" and the X1 allowing an unlimited number of users to utilize Gold from one console as long as it had a Gold account attached to it. I'm sure it still was easy money, but the lure of converting those users to GP was too big of a draw. I think they will continue to do all they can to drive all users to GPU, they just need to be better at selling that. LOL Plus, the higher-ups at MS get bonuses based on GP subscriptions, but not Gold subscriptions or revenue, so there's that.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,016
5,378
540
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.

Just wanted to point out that this will never work on PS or Switch, those browsers don't have adequate access to controller input, with some inputs being permanently tied to the browsers own functionality. The iOS platform is safe from this because even if Apple blocked bluetooth access to controllers from Safari (which they might, LOL), they'd have a hard time blocking edge from the iOS store and it can maintain that functionality. Luna is even safer, it is really the option that could be played via the browser on PS because the controller connects to the cloud and not the internet device.
 

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,375
725
I assume that MS looks at Gold as a dying product
I do not share your speculation that they viewed it as a dying product. There is no data that I know of to suggest it was not easy money for them, nor to suggest it was hindering console sales. I am still with you on the theory they wanted to drive people into gold, but I think that unless proven otherwise, we should stick to the simple and obvious reasoning as to why they would do that. And to me the simple and obvious reason was to increase revenue coming in from GP. Either for straight up profit or reduced losses (on paper), and/or to make the balance sheets look better on what GP offers to shareholders.
This explains it perfectly.
Gold subscribers fell a lot moving from 360 to X1, so there is definitely data points there for that. Though the fall really wasn't from lack of interest, but just the changes brought about by "home Gold" and the X1
and people jumping ship from 360 to PS4.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,016
5,378
540
and people jumping ship from 360 to PS4.

Certainly also true.

I should add that when I say dying product, I'm referring to a product with not much room for growth. I don't really think they had any intention of literally killing Live Gold, they just wanted to make the value of GPU look so good ($15 vs. $11 of Gold alone) that users would just automatically choose GPU going forward.
 
Last edited:

Wizz-Art

Member
Aug 20, 2012
797
1,256
725
I have said this earlier, but the reason why MS is keeping everything quite vague about console exclusivity is because it generates tons of engagement and discussion, gaming-fora all over the world are having such discussion and people can't stop talking about it. I mean since the announcement of the ZeniMax acquisition broke, topics like these are non-stop on the frontpage. The Xbox marketing division is doing this masterfully as you want to keep engagement in your brands high.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: CatLady

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,375
725
Certainly also true.

I should add that when I say dying product, I'm referring to a product with not much room for growth. I don't really think they had any intention of literally killing Live Gold, they just wanted to make the value of GPU look so good ($15 vs. $11 of Gold alone) that users would just automatically choose GPU going forward.
I hear you. The profitability of gold makes bundling it a no brainer to offset any losses they might take on GP. That’s why imo the doubling of gold could just as easily have been about paying for the zeni purchase as it is to pushing people to gpu. The timing is really telling to me. There’s also the possibility that gpu would have increased as well but we’ll never know that now. That’s why I bring up gold and the fact that Msoft has never once announced numbers or attach rate.
 

Derktron

Member
Dec 27, 2019
2,119
2,505
510
Microsoft creating 2 game studios in-house. To create internal competition, and weed out the chaff? 🤔
From the looks of it yes, they are creating two studios one is for Bethesda and the other is for their own. That's what people are claiming.
 

JerryinSoCal

Member
Apr 11, 2020
1,042
1,755
390
All MS care about is selling GamePass subs. And having Zenimax titles on there day#1 will help that aim.

Don't forget they measure success in MAU, not units shifted.
Selling the big games on PS5 would bring in a lot more money a lot sooner, they aren't going to get a ton of people buying XSX consoles and doing long term GP subs if they already own a PS5. They would be missing out on possibly 5-10 million sales, they'll never make that back in the small number of PS5 owners who buy X series consoles and do short term GP subs.
 

JerryinSoCal

Member
Apr 11, 2020
1,042
1,755
390
Sorry frankwza

no it absolutely doesn't ...for the same reason why, even if economically not convenient, game as spiderman that would probably have sold x3 times if released on pc and Xbox, remain exclusive. People should understand that the advantages those esclusive has for leverage the platform compensate in the long run, the economic ones. especially in a platform so much more open and with a very high user reach that has the one that is trying to build Ms respect the competition releasing games on Windows, consoles, xcloud
Playstation today is what it is because you can play just on it ..certain games
Spider-Man would not have sold three times as many copies on those platforms it probably would have added about 1/3 to it's sales, xbox is nowhere near as popular globally as PlayStation and that's not going to change so they may as well help finance GP by taking money from other platforms for certain games. Keep Halo, Gears and Fable exclusive those are actual Xbox brand games but Bethesda tittles aren't tied to xbox, they are historically multi-platform and spending that kind of money on a publisher and turning around and cutting off what will likely be 60% or more of the money they could have brought in would be insane. They aren't making money on GP as it is, that service is going to see changes once MS starts releasing more games, they will likely need to raise the price or make people sign up for longer than month to month if they want 1st party single player games.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Wizz-Art

Yoboman

Member
Sep 17, 2005
20,227
16,934
1,890
I don’t really play their games so it doesn’t matter to me

They should do what makes them more money. I’d guess that’s selling Gamepass subs and consoles so they should do exclusives
 
Aug 28, 2019
4,229
8,764
630
www.instagram.com
Selling the big games on PS5 would bring in a lot more money a lot sooner, they aren't going to get a ton of people buying XSX consoles and doing long term GP subs if they already own a PS5. They would be missing out on possibly 5-10 million sales, they'll never make that back in the small number of PS5 owners who buy X series consoles and do short term GP subs.

They don't have to sub to GP tho; they can still actually just buy the game outright on Series platforms. Once again, you guys vastly overestimate the single-platform tendencies of the wider gaming market and exaggerate a very small niche of hardcore gamers who are glued into that mindset no matter what. They never have nor never will represent the majority of even hardcore or core gamers, let alone the mainstream.

At the same time, you constantly underestimate the idea of gamers owning more than one platform, or taking alternative cheaper means of accessing the content that would still technically be in the Microsoft ecosystem even if it is not in Sony's. So all arguments contrarian to rationalized ideas that these games don't actually need a presence on Sony platforms (or Nintendo platforms for that matter) in order to justify the financial investments always fail right off the spot because people arguing those points forget these two very basic things.

Putting the major non-service Bethesda/Zenimax games on PlayStation 5 (especially day-and-date) more or less guarantees the end of Microsoft as a platform holder and cannibalizes a good chunk of potential subscription growth for Gamepass, plus incurs additional costs in porting and 30% automatic profit losses for each PS5 copy sold to Sony. That all eats away at the proposed 5-10 million copies they'd sell on the platform (and I actually cast that in doubt because another poster earlier broke down sales figures of previous Bethesda games and the lion's share of the sales (70%+) were between Xbox and PC), so how is it in any way a smart or logical long-term business decision?

Just wanted to point out that this will never work on PS or Switch, those browsers don't have adequate access to controller input, with some inputs being permanently tied to the browsers own functionality. The iOS platform is safe from this because even if Apple blocked bluetooth access to controllers from Safari (which they might, LOL), they'd have a hard time blocking edge from the iOS store and it can maintain that functionality. Luna is even safer, it is really the option that could be played via the browser on PS because the controller connects to the cloud and not the internet device.

That's interesting, wasn't aware of this. Thanks for letting me know; guess it would mean the only actual path for GamePass on Sony or Nintendo platforms is a native app after all which, yeah, I strongly doubt Sony and Nintendo are going to want to do.

If they do, it would be limited to MS's content only, and they'd probably expect MS to downscale any push for Xbox consoles going forward. And that would have a negative effect on fanbase goodwill, which could cause declines in software and services support from members of the Xbox fanbase who have stuck by the platforms the past decade, and overall create a net loss for Microsoft in some possible instances, at least early on.

Microsoft would need to be extremely careful with how they handle such a thing, if it even happens (which I doubt will).
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,016
5,378
540
That's interesting, wasn't aware of this. Thanks for letting me know; guess it would mean the only actual path for GamePass on Sony or Nintendo platforms is a native app after all which, yeah, I strongly doubt Sony and Nintendo are going to want to do.

If they do, it would be limited to MS's content only, and they'd probably expect MS to downscale any push for Xbox consoles going forward. And that would have a negative effect on fanbase goodwill, which could cause declines in software and services support from members of the Xbox fanbase who have stuck by the platforms the past decade, and overall create a net loss for Microsoft in some possible instances, at least early on.

Microsoft would need to be extremely careful with how they handle such a thing, if it even happens (which I doubt will).

I've never actually tested this on the PS4 browser, but is does hold true for Edge on Xbox. I've run some browser based emulators through that, but there are limitations (you can't make use of the r or l bumpers because those will jump you out of the tab/open a new tab, etc. regardless of what the javascript on the page is trying to do). If the PS4 and Switch do not currently have these limitations, I'm sure they would be added as soon as GP was being played via them.

It would surprise me if GP was ever available on PS and even Switch is less likely with titles like Hitman III hitting the platform via the native store. MS should still have avenues with these folks without requiring any additional hardware purchase, maybe via a SmartTV, FireTV, Roku, etc. Since MS supports PS controllers natively (don't see why they couldn't support joycons as well) these users don't even need a new controller.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,016
5,378
540
They are never going to close that gap, they aren't popular enough globally.
There's that notion that Sony and Nintendo are popular globally for shits and giggles. They are popular because of the content they put forward that is only available on those platforms. MS's popularity will grow if they can improve their reputation in regards to first-party content available. Certainly they may never close the gap completely, but even a 10% improvement is worth more than Zeni revenue per year in its entirety. MS earns about 7-8b a year on third-party sales on Xbox after all.
 
Mar 18, 2020
1,273
3,291
535
Last edited:

Garani

Member
Oct 22, 2014
857
3,110
555
Other than Wolfenstein and Prey, what else is there at Bethesda? Fallout? Doom? Elder Scrolls? Those are AAA games? Really?

Of course they will be missed from PS and Nintendo platforms, but they aren't unmissable like Bioshock or Mass Effect.
 

fatmarco

Member
Aug 3, 2020
216
319
240
Other than Wolfenstein and Prey, what else is there at Bethesda? Fallout? Doom? Elder Scrolls? Those are AAA games? Really?

Of course they will be missed from PS and Nintendo platforms, but they aren't unmissable like Bioshock or Mass Effect.
I genuinely can't tell if this is parody lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatLady

EventHorizon

Member
Jul 15, 2013
3,712
423
645
Bethesda games will be exclusive to Xbox and PC the way Rise of the Tomb Raider was exclusive to Xbox and PC, and for the same reason.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,016
5,378
540
Bethesda games will be exclusive to Xbox and PC the way Rise of the Tomb Raider was exclusive to Xbox and PC, and for the same reason.

How is that situation even comparable here? The platforms pay so much for those 1yr exclusives on proven franchises like TR, sometimes more than the total cost of development.

I don't see MS paying itself big money for that limited time exclusivity. 🤪
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,016
5,378
540
If MS paid $7 billion for timed exclusives, I have some Blockbuster stock for sale.

Many here don't even think timed exclusives, they are rolling with MS spent $7b for day and date on GP with a simultaneous release on PS. I feel like MS could have just bought that individually for a lot less, even at 200m per title that $7b would stretch pretty far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatmarco

EventHorizon

Member
Jul 15, 2013
3,712
423
645
How is that situation even comparable here? The platforms pay so much for those 1yr exclusives on proven franchises like TR, sometimes more than the total cost of development.

I don't see MS paying itself big money for that limited time exclusivity. 🤪
Microsoft paid $7.5 billion dollars for Bethesda. If they can't afford exclusivity for Rise of the Tomb Raider, there is absolutely no way they can afford exclusivity for Bethesda's games. If it's not comparable, that's only because MS has even more incentive to make Bethesda's games timed exclusives than it did for RotTR.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,016
5,378
540
Microsoft paid $7.5 billion dollars for Bethesda. If they can't afford exclusivity for Rise of the Tomb Raider, there is absolutely no way they can afford exclusivity for Bethesda's games. If it's not comparable, that's only because MS has even more incentive to make Bethesda's games timed exclusives than it did for RotTR.
Who says permanent exclusivity was ever on the table for TR?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Sub Boss

Sub Boss

Member
Mar 6, 2013
22,696
2,473
795
There is what I want, and there is what they will do

I want Bethesda games on PlayStation and Switch, as if nothing happened

No, Microsoft didn't spend billions to release their games on PlayStation., maybe, if we are lucky some of them will come to Switch. But even then it could be less support than now.
 

EventHorizon

Member
Jul 15, 2013
3,712
423
645
Many here don't even think timed exclusives, they are rolling with MS spent $7b for day and date on GP with a simultaneous release on PS. I feel like MS could have just bought that individually for a lot less, even at 200m per title that $7b would stretch pretty far.
While I think timed exclusives are more likely, it is not crazy to think PlayStation wouldn't get a simultaneous release. That's because it costs money in extra marketing needed to have a split launch. They'd also have to sweeten the pot by offering to include DLC and/or other content to justify a $70 price when the game will have already been discounted well below that on Xbox/PC. That's lost money for content that could have been earned if the game was released at the same time.

Hmm... Now that I typed that out, I'm starting to lean towards a simultaneous launch, at least for some of the titles. Why wouldn't Microsoft just buy game exclusivity piecemeal like you suggest? Because without owning Bethesda, Microsoft would not...
  • Get the publicity of buying the company needed to counteract the narrative that Xbox doesn't have games
  • Have any assurance Bethesda would want to enter into a exclusive deal for a game they wanted. After all it didn't work out so well for Square Enix and RotTR
  • Have any assurance that Sony couldn't get exclusive deals for a timed release or content
Who says permanent exclusivity was ever on the table for TR?
Why would that matter? It wasn't ever considered permanently exclusive because the economics don't support it, just like they don't support keeping Bethesda's games exclusive. You can't get around the cold hard economic fact that MS can't spend $7.5 billion dollars for a company and then cut a third of its potential revenue.
 

Warablo

Member
May 15, 2013
2,725
836
730
When you talk about Xbox vs Playstation numbers. You gotta know Xbox now includes Xbox/PC/Mobile now. Which is greater than all of Sony by a big margin.

Imagine if Spiderman released on PC and Xbox. It would sell even bigger gangbusters, but it doesn't because Sony is using it to strengthen its brand.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,016
5,378
540
While I think timed exclusives are more likely, it is not crazy to think PlayStation wouldn't get a simultaneous release. That's because it costs money in extra marketing needed to have a split launch. They'd also have to sweeten the pot by offering to include DLC and/or other content to justify a $70 price when the game will have already been discounted well below that on Xbox/PC. That's lost money for content that could have been earned if the game was released at the same time.

Hmm... Now that I typed that out, I'm starting to lean towards a simultaneous launch, at least for some of the titles. Why wouldn't Microsoft just buy game exclusivity piecemeal like you suggest? Because without owning Bethesda, Microsoft would not...
  • Get the publicity of buying the company needed to counteract the narrative that Xbox doesn't have games
  • Have any assurance Bethesda would want to enter into a exclusive deal for a game they wanted. After all it didn't work out so well for Square Enix and RotTR
  • Have any assurance that Sony couldn't get exclusive deals for a timed release or content

Why would that matter? It wasn't ever considered permanently exclusive because the economics don't support it, just like they don't support keeping Bethesda's games exclusive. You can't get around the cold hard economic fact that MS can't spend $7.5 billion dollars for a company and then cut a third of its potential revenue.

So $7b for a short-term PR stunt (because obviously MS was getting these games anyway and if Sony still is there is no real value there).
What you've outlined with day and date release parity doesn't even include an exclusivity deal, so no exclusivity whatsoever.
All that money to stop a timed exclusive?

Give me a break.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DarkMage619

peter42O

Member
Aug 9, 2014
4,353
2,373
580
I'm fully expecting every Bethesda game to be Xbox/PC exclusive with the exception of Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Wizz-Art

EventHorizon

Member
Jul 15, 2013
3,712
423
645
So $7b for a short-term PR stunt (because obviously MS was getting these games anyway and if Sony still is there is no real value there).
What you've outlined with day and date release parity doesn't even include an exclusivity deal, so no exclusivity whatsoever.
All that money to stop a timed exclusive?

Give me a break.

Microsoft...
  • Prevents Sony from getting exclusive Bethesda content and deals
  • Makes sure all future Bethesda games run well in xCloud
  • Makes sure all Bethesda games are available under GamePass
  • Adds in microtransactions to Bethesda's games so they can still make additional money even if no game purchase required under GamePass
  • Influences timeline and scope of future Bethesda game content so they have regular releases to incentivized users keeping GamePass subscriptions active
  • Ensures Bethesda games are optimized for Series X/S first
  • Gets Bethesda as a legitimate investment opportunity
  • Locks in co-branded marketing opportunities like an Elder Scrolls 6 Series X Special Edition console. With Xbox's smaller market share compared to PlayStation, Microsoft would have to offer disproportionate incentives to get these deals. Cheaper in long run to own Bethesda
  • Gets ability to beef up their game studios capabilities to counteract narrative they don't have games. Can still do exclusive content for games, like Sony did with Spider-Man in the Avengers game
 

Garani

Member
Oct 22, 2014
857
3,110
555
I genuinely can't tell if this is parody lol.
I wish, but sadly I am not. Simply because you believe that Bethesda is a great game developer, it doesn't mean that it's true. There are tons of games much better than those made by them, by a long shot. Fallout? A scam. Doom? FPS with no soul. Elder Scrolls? The most unispired fantasy ever played.

To me, and it is subjective, Bethesda has no redeeming qualities other than Wolfenstein and Prey: two games that have a compeling and well structured story, where the game play had a meaning other than "let's shoot some pixels in the arena" (DOOM) or "let's interact with lifeless and dead NPCs" (Fallout and Elder Scrolls).

Man, even Obsidian does a better job than Bethesda. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Wizz-Art

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,016
5,378
540
Can't believe there are 11 pages of this rabbit hole. LOL ...laughs while knowingly participating in most of them...

Whatever they do, it will be based on what MS brass think will help their position and better serve the company. Appeasing the Sony faithful or even the Xbox faithful won't really play into it. With that said they certainly are capable of misreading the market as they recently displayed, so, we'll see how it goes. If they don't get some level of exclusivity here I think they've goofed again, but that is just me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garani