ESO will stay multi, but there will be XBox/PC user exclusive perks no doubt.. new games will not be multi though..They should keep all major AAA games exclusive but keep the big GaaS type stuff on all platforms and continue to support them with microtransactions = profit.
I don’t think this does much either way. They’d if they were considering keeping the games multiplat they would be better off doing it for 6 years and then pulling everything into exclusivity. Once they’ve established enough new IPs enticing that you’d want to buy a system for so you can play the sequels.Have it both ways. GamePass exclusive for 6 months to a year, then other platforms.
that’s rbi baseball. Sony publishes The ShowThe Show 21 on Xbox is published by MLB
If zenimax was not making money and the owners wanted to sell why would Microsoft want to continue the same failed strategy? Timed exclusive would sell zero Xboxes so zero gamepass subs and timed exclusives sell like shit on the other platforms because they are old games when released. Making the games exclusive and selling more Xbox's and gamepass subs is the only real play. It is just a longer term one. For the next decade 75% of Gamepass subs will be Xbox owners. Microsoft needs exclusives to sell Xbox's.It's better for their brand to keep it to themselves. It's better for their bottom line to support all platforms. Ultimately they may do both--publishing on everything but making the Xbox/PC version a timed exclusive, or perhaps locking specific content to their own platform (DLC, maps, characters, etc.)
It's not about being disingenuous, but because MS has done it with other IPs. So they give the feeling they're not as fussed about it as we are.That's the case for ALL companies, but the disingenuous part is that almost no one ever asks this question WRT Sony or Nintendo's 1P output coming to other platforms. Again, these are all corporations, they just want to get as much money as they can, you would think Sony & Nintendo would know for sure they could get even more revenue and profit selling their games on Xbox and PC platforms, yet Sony barely does and Nintendo outright doesn't.
Do you guys think Sony and Nintendo are charities and want to leave money on the table? Or do you acknowledge that exclusives are important for a platform and if so, why insist that only one company (Microsoft) ignore what you consider a reality? I feel like a lot of people know the answers to these questions but have other reasons for insisting what THEY view as Microsoft's biggest IPs (particularly now, with acquisition of Zenimax) still come to other platforms, particularly PlayStation, and never once discuss about what games Sony should probably consider bringing to Xbox & PC to make the exchange fair (i.e it'd have to be a good bit more than MLB: The Show and Horizon).
And it's not worth saying that Sony and Microsoft's platform models are different; they both want to sell consoles, they have both spent tons of money in R&D and production for these systems, and they both still thrive off of software sales in their ecosystem. Microsoft's business model just has a few more additional levels of flexibility reliant on the cloud and subscription services, that's the only real difference. But it's certainly not enough for them to justify compromising their own ecosystem and services by bringing software that'd otherwise draw people to them as exclusive content, to other ecosystems wholesale such as PlayStation and Switch.
Comparing acquisitions to internally developed IPs or studios is never going to make sense. Them LEAVING these games multiplat is not the same as making Halo multiplat Or Sony making Uncharted multiplat or Nintendo making Mario multiplat. Zeni studios are hired guns that are going to be, for the most part, making established IPs that made their company able to be valued and purchased for 7.5 million. That’s the bottom line on the dumb question of why it doesn’t apply to Sony or Nintendo. None of these games or IPs are even close to being remotely synonymous with Xbox. When Sony or Nintendo pay for a bunch of studios and a bunch of games we can ask that question. Meanwhile they continue to make games from studios they develop or nurture and maintain great relationships with and then purchase.It's not about being disingenuous, but because MS has done it with other IPs. So they give the feeling they're not as fussed about it as we are.
Personally, I prefer exclusives.
Oh I am not counting on the fact that Microsoft will be putting games on the Playstation. I am just not ruling it out. I've been wrong on one account already - I really thought Microsoft meant it when they said all games during the first 2 years would be cross generation (but we got The Medium.)Oh no , I don't think like you at all. Windows is a Microsoft product that now serves the company as a trojan horse to offer countless products. Office, Azure,Gamepass,Skype,Teams and many, many others. It is so clear that indeed we have the Xbox application pre-installed on every Windows ... do you think Sony could do it? I don't understand how you can even think that Ms has no control over theirs operating system, the reality is that Microsoft never was really interested in gaming otherwise I assure you that she would have become as ferocious as Ms has been in many other areas of their interest and we are beginning to see this ferocity with the acquisitions it is making. Anyway, I never said that Microsoft has control of the world of PC gaming. I said that Ms currently has easily lot more user reach through the multiple supported devices than Sony can hope to achieve with the ps5 while selling more than the ps4 it's just the harsh reality of numbers. To be clear this doesn't mean every game but will sell more than Sony's blockbusters !!!! .To conclude I think that Ms will release on PlayStation the mmo and games knows would not promote and push the platform. If you are expecting a hyped by the masses 90+ metacritic AAA developed by Ms (if it will ever be released obviously hehehe) to come out on PlayStation well I think you don't get Phil Spencer's intentions
Oh, that's an interesting idea--allow it on the console but not for purchase, only in the form of gamepass?What they should do is keep it to Xbox and PC, which for the large majority of major AAA titles, they will. Unless Nintendo and Sony allow Game Pass on their platforms. Phil Spencer has been upfront, that is what they want.
I’m not saying I agree or it’s right, but they own the company. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation if they had been acquired by Sony.
like for fifa using real names shirts etc etc forced sony to release on other system probably they would like would happen for fifa lose the license if they didn't.
This is exactly what I was thinking when I first heard of the purchased.
It's all about making more money for these companies.
Only fan boys would say otherwise.
If Microsoft do make all those games exclusive, and on game pass to boot.
It would take them ages to turn around to be in the profit margin.
And it also depends on how much console they sell.
MIcrosoft doesn't see it's future in an plastic box. It's about software sales volumes and subscriptions from here on in.Yeah MS spends billions on a corp so its games can come out the PS. Listen to yourselfs, will you...
2 years down the line they'll all be on XBox or PC with maybe the odd port to Nintendo HH system if you're lucky
Sony gains nothing from keeping their games on playstation.For us as customers, continuing on with the games being multiplatform as they are now is obviously the better choice.
For them as a business, they gain nothing from keeping these releases off Playstation and Nintendo systems.
Xbox is never going to be a serious competitor for the other two, and PC players have zero reason to switch to Xbox.
Think alot of people forget this, Microsoft owns the IP, Sony doesn't own MLB (maybe the license but not the entity as a whole) and if the rumours are true that entity can still control what Sony does with the licenseSony doesn't own Major League Baseball. Microsoft owns 100% of Zenimax and Bethesda Major League.
Then perhaps Microsoft should have sued for Sony tying Spiderman to the PS4. Or perhaps the MCU Spiderman deals between Disney and Sony Pictures that started in 2015 included a broader range of exclusivity that extends to games, which makes the job harder for an accusation.So how does this logic work with Insomniac? Every other Spiderman game was multiplat until their releases... while SONY does still currently maintain the rights, they don't own the IP. Yet the most recent games are SONY exclusive with no plans for other consoles. I think that there is no legal ramifications and it will be Microsoft's choice, just as Spiderman was for SONY.
I honestly don't know why my previous post gathered so much attention or mocking answers like this one.Sony should sue Microsoft over not following the geneva convention:
When Sony did have interest in Square, the games were exclusive for the longest time. Thinking PS1 and Ps2. You didn't see Square games on the N64 or Sega Saturn or Dreamcast. Even the few GBA titles back then were original or Super Nes ports not related to the Playstation titles. So yes Bethesda games should be exclusive to the Microsoft console. Only ported maybe years later.