• 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
Oct 16, 2017
1,790
2,945
405
I highly doubt the Xbox division is $7.5b in the black on the balance sheets after 20+ years.
Well of course, Xbox didn't buy Bethesda, Microsoft did. My point is that the money had to be earned back somehow, the question is if Gamepass alone was ever going to cut it.
Going multiplat is the easy solution, because when they bought Bethesda they paid for a company who earned money selling Multiplat games. The 7.5 billion valuation was calculated using the profits Bethesda would be expected to earn. To change that and to no longer selling on Playstation means writing off part of that profit. Which is fine; the question is if the writeoff could somehow be balanced by significant increase in income from Gamepass.

That's where it boils down to. is Gamepass able to make up the difference?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Heisenberg007

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,022
5,390
540
I find it interesting that a few weeks ago, there was a media release that Microsoft had already made enough profit to cancel out the money they spent on Bethesda.
That was a very weird statement. Because if they really mean what they say, that would be implying they don't need the billions they spent to actually lead anywhere. That they can just give ME a billion dollars and not expect anything back, because they are so rich.

But of course that isn't true. Microsoft expect something back from Bethesda. However the fact that so many people is believing otherwise, really makes me think economic thinking is not as widespread as it should be. If Microsoft keep spending billions without expecting billions to come back to them, very soon they wouldn't have a company anymore.

The bigger problem is that many don't understand how the money flows in the gaming market at all. They don't consider the benefits that growing your ecosystem provide over just selling a few more copies of a particular title. Nintendo and Sony understand this very well and have been successful as a result. The potential increase in revenue from exclusivity isn't limited to GP or copies sold, but extends to hardware and third-party software sales, etc.
 
Last edited:
May 26, 2014
491
107
520
If Zenimax has been doing so poorly how have they managed to stay in the game this long? A publisher doesn't decide they can make more money but eliminating a huge section of their customer base.

This is not a Zenimax decision. It is a Microsoft decision. Microsoft will do what is best for their bottom line. Making content exclusive will indeed prop up their Xbox platform--but buyimg into the fallacy that everyone will run out and buy a $30] to $500 system just to play their games is foolish. Especially if a gamer is already invested in a rival ecosystem.

It will come down to what is more important to Microsoft. Trying to make Xbox larger? Or just raking in the money across the board. There are merits tp both. But shareholders want money now--and releasing a product across 5 to 7 platforms casts a much larger money net than 3 or 4.

Growing Gamepass is also a double-edged sword. Monthly income is better than a one-time purchase. But they also have to have enough value to keep people from turning it off. Which costs money. Having the new Bethesda title on their will drive up the sub count, but its meaningless if a huge amount of people cancel it after finishing the title.

There's a lot of moving parts. And not many ways for MS to lose. They'll settle into what bri gs them the most money long term. Is keeping everything exclusive the best path to that? Possibly. We'll know in time. Demand for PS5 and Series is still very high, so there's no measure of how this will affect things long term at the moment.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Wizz-Art

Negotiator101

Member
Jan 24, 2021
2,023
2,900
355
If Zenimax has been doing so poorly how have they managed to stay in the game this long? A publisher doesn't decide they can make more money but eliminating a huge section of their customer base.

This is not a Zenimax decision. It is a Microsoft decision. Microsoft will do what is best for their bottom line. Making content exclusive will indeed prop up their Xbox platform--but buyimg into the fallacy that everyone will run out and buy a $30] to $500 system just to play their games is foolish. Especially if a gamer is already invested in a rival ecosystem.

It will come down to what is more important to Microsoft. Trying to make Xbox larger? Or just raking in the money across the board. There are merits tp both. But shareholders want money now--and releasing a product across 5 to 7 platforms casts a much larger money net than 3 or 4.

Growing Gamepass is also a double-edged sword. Monthly income is better than a one-time purchase. But they also have to have enough value to keep people from turning it off. Which costs money. Having the new Bethesda title on their will drive up the sub count, but its meaningless if a huge amount of people cancel it after finishing the title.

There's a lot of moving parts. And not many ways for MS to lose. They'll settle into what bri gs them the most money long term. Is keeping everything exclusive the best path to that? Possibly. We'll know in time. Demand for PS5 and Series is still very high, so there's no measure of how this will affect things long term at the moment.
What?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wizz-Art

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,498
3,709
385
"This is not a Zenimax decision. It is a Microsoft decision. Microsoft will do what is best for their bottom line. Making content exclusive will indeed prop up their Xbox platform--but buyimg into the fallacy that everyone will run out and buy a $30] to $500 system just to play their games is foolish. Especially if a gamer is already invested in a rival ecosystem."
I don't really understand what's fallacy you mean and why should be so crazy about betting that studios like Obsidian, Ninja theory, the initiative, playground, bethesda, id, machinegames, rare,the coalition, turn10, 343i, (and all the others that I'm not writing because I would stretch the post too much and unnecessarily) will attract gamers.
People buy console for this exact reason "games" the same people who buy the PlayStation do it for the same reason and even more are directed towards one hardware than another if the most of the games they want to play are exclusive to that platform.
Gaming world it is vast and growing, every year new generations are added who buy a console for the first time. Microsoft with the move of the two consoles, one of which at a very low price, the r release of games on pc and xcloud and the gamepass value compared to the price it costs has an offer to which, if you add MUST HAVE games ... as would be doom, the elder scroll or fallout and who knows how many others .... it will become too good to pass. So no dear friend, let me say the only foolish thing would be not to evaluate the microsoft proposal before buying a new console especially when all first party purchases will start releasing titles.
 
Last edited:
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Wizz-Art

Denton

Member
Mar 11, 2014
6,618
1,974
725
They should convince Sony to release their games on Xbox and Windows, and then release all of MS games on Xbox, Windows and Playstation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: phil_t98

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
6,192
3,185
1,695
If Zenimax has been doing so poorly how have they managed to stay in the game this long? A publisher doesn't decide they can make more money but eliminating a huge section of their customer base.

This is not a Zenimax decision. It is a Microsoft decision. Microsoft will do what is best for their bottom line. Making content exclusive will indeed prop up their Xbox platform--but buyimg into the fallacy that everyone will run out and buy a $30] to $500 system just to play their games is foolish. Especially if a gamer is already invested in a rival ecosystem.

It will come down to what is more important to Microsoft. Trying to make Xbox larger? Or just raking in the money across the board. There are merits tp both. But shareholders want money now--and releasing a product across 5 to 7 platforms casts a much larger money net than 3 or 4.

Growing Gamepass is also a double-edged sword. Monthly income is better than a one-time purchase. But they also have to have enough value to keep people from turning it off. Which costs money. Having the new Bethesda title on their will drive up the sub count, but its meaningless if a huge amount of people cancel it after finishing the title.

There's a lot of moving parts. And not many ways for MS to lose. They'll settle into what bri gs them the most money long term. Is keeping everything exclusive the best path to that? Possibly. We'll know in time. Demand for PS5 and Series is still very high, so there's no measure of how this will affect things long term at the moment.
If this was about instant money they would invest in azure, enterprise or anything but gaming lol. There is a reason zenimax was for sale and there was forced hail Marie's like fall out 76. Microsoft did not buy a failing publisher to continue the same model. They bought it to take a flyer at the gaming market like when they buy other companies like Nokia. If it works they grow the xb division and azure at the same time. They diversify on top of it. To continue the same failed model as Zenimax only sells playstation 5 consoles.
 
Last edited:

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,377
725
That's where it boils down to. is Gamepass able to make up the difference?
That depends on what gamepass ends up at. Especially if they move to an inflated GPU since they failed at keeping the price raise of gold. They might force the 2 together. The more they begin releasing single player games with no online components the less attractive it is to get GpU. Right now it’s cheaper than gamepass alone because of the many ways to get the $1 gp add on to gold donuts a no brained since it’s cheaper than gamepass alone and many of the current attractions offer online multiplayer. But, if they ever close that and take away stand alone gamepass they could charge $20 or more per month for GPU.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: DarkMage619

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,022
5,390
540
If this was about instant money they would invest in azure, enterprise or anything but gaming lol. There is a reason zenimax was for sale and there was forced hail Marie's like fall out 76. Microsoft did not buy a failing publisher to continue the same model. They bought it to take a flyer at the gaming market like when they buy other companies like Nokia. If it works they grow the xb division and azure at the same time. They diversify on top of it. To continue the same failed model as Zenimax only sells playstation 5 consoles.
There's always that possibility that MS hedges their bets and does a little of both, certainly within the realm of possibility.

The problem with this thread is the notion that MS somehow can't or shouldn't create exclusive content while everyone else in the space is doing that (including with IP that had formerly been multi-plat like Spider-Man). Like somehow what all the other players have been doing for decades is off limits to MS. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Oct 16, 2017
1,790
2,945
405
There's always that possibility that MS hedges their bets and does a little of both, certainly within the realm of possibility.

The problem with this thread is the notion that MS somehow can't or shouldn't create exclusive content while everyone else in the space is doing that (including with IP that had formerly been multi-plat like Spider-Man). Like somehow what all the other players have been doing for decades is off limits to MS. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
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.
 

Troglodyte

Banned
Nov 6, 2020
232
394
285
Exclusives or not ill be playing some Bethesda games because unlike some of you limp wristed console fan boys there are still true gamers who own ALL THE CONSOLES.
 

SRTtoZ

Member
Mar 10, 2011
12,541
8
700
New York
They will almost certainly support other platforms like Playstation and Nintendo since they need to recoup their investment and putting them only on game pass for the price game pass is right now won't do that. Cutting out their Playstation and Nintendo fanbase would be HUGE.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,022
5,390
540
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.

Not sure how guaranteed the return is running things exactly as they have been. Looks like it would take about 75 years to break even with the average profits that Bethesda has shown over the last five years. :messenger_winking_tongue:
 

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,377
725
The problem with this thread is the notion that MS somehow can't or shouldn't create exclusive content while everyone else in the space is doing that (including with IP that had formerly been multi-plat like Spider-Man).
they can and should create exclusive content. That’s not what they’re doing with the zeni acquisition though. They’re buying established, multi console series that go back decades. That’s it.
Spider-Man by insomniac is another awful comparison. The most insane licensing split up over different formats and that was originally created as a comic book and then cartoon and movie ip is not the same as a first party video game creation developed by the company. And the multiplat Spider-Man was made by activision.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: DaGwaphics

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,022
5,390
540
they can and should create exclusive content. That’s not what they’re doing with the zeni acquisition though. They’re buying established, multi console series that go back decades. That’s it.
Spider-Man by insomniac is another awful comparison. The most insane licensing split up over different formats and that was originally created as a comic book and then cartoon and movie ip is not the same as a first party video game creation developed by the company. And the multiplat Spider-Man was made by activision.
loop dough GIF by Paul Trillo
 
Aug 28, 2019
4,534
9,348
650
www.instagram.com
Netflix shows get sold on Bluray and syndicated to television all over the world. If gamepass is Netflix, then content is forthcoming far and wide.
Yes, conveniently forget that Netflix also has original content and the other shows you're referring to are from THIRD-PARTY CONTENT CREATORS.

C'mon, give it an actual try next time ;)
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.

You're twisting the definition to fit your own intentions. We can make the same argument WRT Spiderman; prior to Insomniac and Sony acquiring the license for the gaming side, Spiderman game were synonymous with being multiplatform titles. Outside of the character's inclusion in a few one-offs here and there, that isn't the case anymore. Yet, no one seems to have an issue with justifying the Spiderman games now basically being PlayStation exclusives...and there's nothing wrong with that.

Let me ask you a genuine question: did you have similar opinions WRT Sony getting console exclusivity on, say, Street Fighter 5? If your answer is that the game wouldn't of been made without Sony's money, then A) That in itself is questionable (SF is one of Capcom's bigger IPs and they would've afforded the budget to produce it, even if the release would've been later) and, B) that answer can apply to Zenimax as well. People are really quick to forget that Zenimax's investor group was looking to spin them off, and without any investors, they would not have any resources to make nearly the amount of games they are making now. So what is so different in MS's role to Zenimax's situation in being a financeer, compared to Sony's role to Capcom being a financeer to Street Fighter 5?

The truth is, there is no difference.

Microsoft is, and always has been a software company. The Xbox platform only exists to sell more software.
Bethesda games will exist on every console, just like Windows VMs run on ESX, and Office runs on Mac.
I don't think I can even begin to cover the amount of ignorance in this comment. Guess we should call the Surface products software applications. All the same, guess we have to find who programmed the PS5 OS because Sony obviously didn't, being a "hardware company" and all.

I don’t care either way but all the thumbs up comments about Fallout 5 coming to other machines then why hasn’t Halo is a pointless argument.

MS purchased Bungie for one precise reason, to have a FPS on the OG Xbox at launch, a platform exclusive.

The purchase of Bethesda on the other hand, an already established multi platform publisher just to close ranks and put everything on game pass makes zero commercial sense.

If they can make the money back with game pass subs then fine but let’s just be hypothetical say Fallout was launching next year and there’s 5 million series x and five million PlayStation 5’s in the wild. You telling me they wouldn’t want another potential million sales to Sony for £/$ 60-80 as well as a million downloading it for £12 month on game pass?

Potential returns, sixty million for one, twelve million for the other? Offer that to the MS shareholders see what they say.
Not if it hurts Xbox sales AND Gamepass subs by putting those games natively on PlayStation Day-and-Date, which is exactly what some people are still deluded enough to think MS will do, believing simply having the games on Gamepass in that case will be "good enough" (it won't).

IF we see releases to PlayStation or even Nintendo platforms, they're going to be years out. Taking a page from Sony's book I can easily see two years minimum between releases of, say, Starfield or Fallout or Doom, between MS and Sony platforms. For other games I expect even longer release gaps.

Now, that DOESN'T prevent PlayStation or Nintendo owners from playing those games via Gamepass Xcloud steaming in the browser, which is basically a backdoor means of getting Gamepass on such platforms that Sony/Nintendo can't actually do anything about, and if those players are hungering enough to play said games and don't want to buy an Xbox or a sufficient enough PC...at the very least, they'd still have to sub to Gamepass. It ensures that even in a worst-case scenario, Microsoft still gets something and it doesn't blatantly jeopardize their console or subscription markets by, let's face it, cannibalizing sales by providing porting and timing parity to direct competitors.
 

FrankWza

Member
Feb 14, 2013
4,474
4,377
725
That’s the new IP they came up with? A game about a pretzel? But a pretzel game would be waaaaay better with dualsense features....they can make it multiplat too. Chocolate pretzel PS5 version and the Xbox version will be covered in Salt. ;)
 

Barakov

Member
Sep 30, 2006
8,793
8,249
1,670
If you want people to buy XSX/S then you keep Bethesda and their games to yourself. Right now Xbox is on the back foot, again, so just releasing their games on Xbox and PC is probably the thing they need to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Forsythia
Aug 28, 2019
4,534
9,348
650
www.instagram.com
From a business standpoint: yes they should continue to make games for all other platforms. From a brand perspective: This would finally solve Microsoft's problem of not having relevant exclusives.

In the end I think the business perspective will win. Microsoft already said several times that they don´t see Sony as competition. They have a different endgame and soon you will not even need a Xbox to play those games on your TV.

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.

Ok so change the word netflix to HBO

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


I love how MS capitalizing on the 100M ps userbase makes sense but Sony capitalizing on the 60M xboxes + hundreds of millions of pc gamers doesn't.

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. The valid reason is money.
2. The purchases in Zenimax just double down on existing strengths in WRPG's and FPS. Its not going to broaden their appeal.
3. MS primary focus is selling software services, not hardware. Day #1 Exclusivity on GP serves this goal.
4. Pushing full exclusivity forces the competition to reciprocate, especially when they enjoy greater marketshare.
5. MS cannot "own" gaming, the competition is too established and well funded, so trying to kill them off by starving them of content is a fool's errand.
6. Divesting Zenimax of all multi-platform support is improbable in the short term as it would require massive reorganization and accompanying disruption.
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...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: point decay

DrSerigala

Member
Feb 26, 2018
76
72
255
The only way that Bethesda Games will release at Switch and PS5 is if sony and nintendo allow Gamepass at Switch and PS5.

Otherwise, zero chance it will release at PS and Switch
 
Aug 28, 2019
4,534
9,348
650
www.instagram.com
There's always that possibility that MS hedges their bets and does a little of both, certainly within the realm of possibility.

The problem with this thread is the notion that MS somehow can't or shouldn't create exclusive content while everyone else in the space is doing that (including with IP that had formerly been multi-plat like Spider-Man). Like somehow what all the other players have been doing for decades is off limits to MS. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Yeah and this is both the frustrating and deceptive part, because a lot of the same people arguing for them to keep releasing all of these games on other platforms are the same ones who criticize them for lack of console exclusives and pushing things like the "no games" memes. So you would think they'd WANT these games to stay ecosystem-exclusive post-acquisition in order to make the platform more viable, but the truth is some of these people just want Microsoft to exit the market as a platform holder and have no intent to actually give the platform or expanded ecosystem any props nor invest in said platform/ecosystem.

They are simply too scared of showing their true intent by saying they want less platform holders for less competition so that their preferred brand (usually Sony) can stay strong. The failure in their thinking is that they seem to think their preferred brand can only be assuredly healthy if another brand dies off; as someone who saw Sega (and to a lesser extent SNK) exit the market as platform holders and genuinely feels the industry lost a couple special things when that happened, I will never want for any platform holder to exit the market. Be it Sony, or Nintendo, or yes even Microsoft.

Because I genuinely enjoy what all the platform holders (major ones, anyway), past and present, have been able to bring. Obviously this doesn't extend to companies like Google because, being frank, they have established no presence whatsoever in the market as a respectable or influential platform holder and the effective death of Stadia as a major platform only cements this IMHO.
 

devilNprada

Member
May 2, 2019
1,075
1,246
390
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...
Yawn
 
  • LOL
Reactions: FrankWza

Wizz-Art

Member
Aug 20, 2012
881
1,462
815
This discussion is kinda pointless, Xbox will have huge console exclusives and the biggest fear of the Sony - console exclusive - crowd seems to be that many will have to buy an XSX/XSS to play those huge games. If PS had some good exclusives I want to play and PS3 BC I would buy a PS, it's simple as that.
 
Last edited:

Nitty_Grimes

Member
Aug 4, 2015
4,314
2,875
635
47
Mind you by the time the new fallout / scrolls is out we’ll be on Series Y or Z and Gamepass Ultimate ++ or something.:)
 
Last edited:

NiiloPielinen

Member
Jan 20, 2016
562
461
410
If MS releases games on PS, then those games are competing with PS first party games and eating Sony profits somewhat
 
Last edited:

shubik

Member
Dec 23, 2019
499
1,094
345
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.


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.
 

Negotiator101

Member
Jan 24, 2021
2,023
2,900
355
There's always that possibility that MS hedges their bets and does a little of both, certainly within the realm of possibility.

The problem with this thread is the notion that MS somehow can't or shouldn't create exclusive content while everyone else in the space is doing that (including with IP that had formerly been multi-plat like Spider-Man). Like somehow what all the other players have been doing for decades is off limits to MS. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Well can Microsoft afford to do exclusives? I mean they only banked 15 billion last quarter.
 

Shelookdlvl18

Banned
Nov 8, 2020
558
1,064
360
Sony gets a cut from every sold game, so Sony would still earn money from Microsofts games.

It Must suck to be so wrong in so few words.

If MS's goal for all this is to simply sell games, then it would only make sense to sell them everywhere possible.

But if their goal is to use the added content to drive customers to Gamepass, then it makes sense to keep it as tied to Gamepass as reasonably possible.

So is it MS's wish to get Gamepass on Playstation consoles? If so, I could see MS dangling that Bethesda carrot in front of Sony. I doubt Sony would bite though, as they've shunned this type of stuff on their platform before.
 

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
10,358
23,628
815
If MS's goal for all this is to simply sell games, then it would only make sense to sell them everywhere possible.

But if their goal is to use the added content to drive customers to Gamepass, then it makes sense to keep it as tied to Gamepass as reasonably possible.

So is it MS's wish to get Gamepass on Playstation consoles? If so, I could see MS dangling that Bethesda carrot in front of Sony. I doubt Sony would bite though, as they've shunned this type of stuff on their platform before.
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: PropellerEar

WildBoy

Member
Jun 13, 2019
238
268
285
MS will have them be a one year exclusive on their platforms and the DLC also one year exclusive from date of their release. There is no way Elder Scrolls and Starfield hit PS5 day 1 as Xbox consoles and PC. Some games could remain exclusive though - such as Evil Within 3 or Wolfenstein 3.
 

rofif

Member
Sep 13, 2019
7,023
9,753
620
I want them to share the games but realistically, it would be better for them to keep as exclusives.
 

ACESHIGH

Member
May 16, 2020
1,071
1,867
395
I was made to believe by PS fanboys themselves that every PS gamer has a more than capable gaming PC, so they can play Xbox exclusives no problem. Hell, you can even play them via Xcloud on your android device.

The narrative here and on the other forum is that PS users have high end gaming pcs but get PSTD when trying to game on pc as they are stressed out from coding all day on them at their jobs.
 
Oct 16, 2017
1,790
2,945
405
Well can Microsoft afford to do exclusives? I mean they only banked 15 billion last quarter.
Are you suggesting they can now throw away 15 billion?

Because at this point i am getting the impression that Xbox fans view money earned by Microsoft Enterprise division as THEIR, Xbox , money. That somehow Xbox is some favourite son of Microsoft. i have no idea where the delusion is coming from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrankWza

BeardGawd

Member
Dec 16, 2019
794
1,431
485
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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shmunter

Sony

Nintendo
Jun 15, 2016
1,872
1,154
760
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.
 
Last edited:

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
11,815
7,838
885
I am in the 1 year exclusive, then off to Sony consoles club. Keep some DLC or Missions/Items/etc Xbox only, because that is what Sony would do.

On this pie Chart Xbox has 1/4 of the blue, all of the green and through X Cloud (or whatever it is called this week) access to all of the purple. They have no need to make them available to Sony.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gatox and WildBoy

Greggy

Member
Nov 7, 2020
439
746
305
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.

I think it would be a logical business move given how much it did cost Microsoft to purchase Zenimax. MS isn't asking sony fanboys to buy an xbox but to come play them in the Xbox ecosystem. That could simply mean firing a tablet or desktop app, both devices that they already own. And those who refuse to probably would have never touched anything associated with xbox. But every barrier for them to do so, including cost and outstanding exclusive content, has been removed. That's the best a company aspiring to be successful can do towards potential customers.
 

Popup

Member
Oct 20, 2007
228
190
1,135
Maybe every software company should release their own specific console to play their titles on too?
Those Ubi-Box's and EA-Station's would look great next to our Xbox and PS5.
 
Mar 18, 2020
1,273
3,291
535
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.
Those are PC centric franchises.


"I don't know that it portends some other big consolidation. In other industries, that happens from time to time," he says. "All of the games I've done we've partnered with Microsoft in some way. So as we come to Starfield and Elder Scrolls 6, I guess this is partnering in a bigger way."
I don't know how anyone can read this and think they will release on PS5
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gatox

FranXico

Member
Dec 7, 2010
14,353
28,658
1,420
They have spent all that money precisely to take all those franchises away from playstation. Of course future games won't come out there any more.

That's business. Just don't try to make it righteous when you know it's not.