I'm nobody
Member
Starfield may also be terrible like cyberpunk and others.Can't wait for that Starfield trailer to shock those Sony fans that Microsoft can indeed ignore their money.
Last edited:
Starfield may also be terrible like cyberpunk and others.Can't wait for that Starfield trailer to shock those Sony fans that Microsoft can indeed ignore their money.
You have to remember MS isn’t only Xbox, they make most of their money through other sources.This is not really the right answer. This strategy does not help MS grow its Gamepass subscriber base. If MS kept all its games Gamepass exclusive, the subscriber base will grow (console users + PC users).
By putting games on Steam, MS nets roughly the same amount of money (~70%) that it would if it puts an XGS game on PlayStation, and its ecosystem userbase does not grow in both cases.
You are raising completely irrelevant points, my friend. I'll go back to my original question / argument: "If growing Gamepass is the only thing that MS cares about (and the reason why Bethesda games won't be on PlayStation), why does MS not keep XGS games exclusive to Gamepass PC?"Bullshit. Gamers playing on PC are comfortable with PC and help add to MS other ecosystems. (Office, Azure, Teams)
Gamers on PS do nothing to help bring in other money after the 59.99 is spent.
Starfield was announced as next gen consoles when the trailer released. None were specified, so we really have no idea what consoles it will or won’t come to.Early Bethesda games like Starfield will be cross-gen, so you are looking at not just the ~5M PS5 userbase, but at 130M PS4/PS5 userbase.
Bethesda games sell a lot more on PlayStation. That's why they were valued at $7.5B. It'd be a big, bold move (not completely impossible, but a big move nevertheless) to pay $7.5B for games, then remove the biggest market for those games by not releasing them on PlayStation, and then putting those games on Gamepass that doesn't make much profit as of now.
That was exactly my point. While growing GP subscriber base is a VERY important KPI for Microsoft and Xbox right now, it is not the only thing. They also need to take care of operating profits and think about other popular platforms (e.g., Steam), and they do.But in this way Ms maintains the popularity of its dominant operating system for gaming and this is in the long run more important for them. They can't leave steam when it is by far the most famous store on pc. So a mix between the two....gamepass and steam because we must remember that on steam you cannot subscribe to GP you will pay for the game in full.
How will they explain why they’re choosing a petty retaliation over more money to investors?If Microsoft is aware (and if we are They are too) of the deals made by Sony in trying not to make titles like the new final fantasy arrive on the Xbox or from the rumors a new Silent Hill you can be sure that games, except those whose agreements have not already been signed, will not be released on PlayStation. A right now Ps5 userbase is so little that is not even a problem, they can completely avoiding it and i don't see them releasing on multiple ps4 / ps5 consoles
they don’t care about only growing Gamepass, that’s an arguement some fanboys raised here.You are raising completely irrelevant points, my friend. I'll go back to my original question / argument: "If growing Gamepass is the only thing that MS cares about (and the reason why Bethesda games won't be on PlayStation), why does MS not keep XGS games exclusive to Gamepass PC?"
PC players who want to play those games can subscribe to Gamepass and play them. There isn't any inconvenience there.
My bad with that. I meant to include the word 'will likely be cross-gen' (but missed it). Was speculating because we don't have solid information either way.Starfield was announced as next gen consoles when the trailer released. None were specified, so we really have no idea what consoles it will or won’t come to.
But go ahead and pretend you know.
They were very specific with thier wording on the announcement trailer. Coming to next gen consoles.My bad with that. I meant to include the word 'will likely be cross-gen' (but missed it). Was speculating because we don't have solid information either way.
Releasing games on playstation destroy the idea of Bethesda being owned by Ms. We know it. They know it. You will not see bethesda games on Ps ...just xbox + pc + xcloud. 7.5B are nothing for Ms and if they understand that it bring a future improvement to their ecosystem they could spend even more.Early Bethesda games like Starfield will be cross-gen, so you are looking at not just the ~5M PS5 userbase, but at 130M PS4/PS5 userbase.
Bethesda games sell a lot more on PlayStation. That's why they were valued at $7.5B. It'd be a big, bold move (not completely impossible, but a big move nevertheless) to pay $7.5B for games, then remove the biggest market for those games by not releasing them on PlayStation, and then putting those games on Gamepass that doesn't make much profit as of now.
The thing about the Bethesda deal is when you compare it to other big deals I think the hype has gotten out of hand, the games will be everywhere.
Explaininng the project as sony do when buy/spend for exclusives. The reach of users that ms have with pc+xbox+xcloud is lots bigger of the usual 100 millions that sony ecosystem have close to the end of the gen... and if they can explain I'm sure Ms can explain too. It's not a economic problem it's not a userbase problem. This problem is created just over the forums, because people probably haven't accepted the acquisition yetHow will they explain why they’re choosing a petty retaliation over more money to investors?
I don’t have any numbers to back it up but I wouldn’t be surprised if all Bethesda games has sold more on Playstation than Xbox or PC. So I’m not sure the numbers would add up to make that strategy seem wise. They can also see what has happened with Minecraft when they left it multiplat.Explaininng the project as sony do when buy/spend for exclusives. The reach of users that ms have with pc+xbox+xcloud is lots bigger of the usual 100 millions that sony ecosystem have close to the end of the gen... and if they can explain I'm sure Ms can explain too
Bethesda games have sold miles more on PC than PS and Xbox combined.I don’t have any numbers to back it up but I wouldn’t be surprised if all Bethesda games has sold more on Playstation than Xbox or PC. So I’m not sure the numbers would add up to make that strategy seem wise. They can also see what has happened with Minecraft when they left it multiplat.
And Sony has never been in that position after a studio acquisition, except when starting out and buying Psygnosis, and they only have one platform and will fight with claws to keep it relevant just like Nintendo.
MS have their games and OS and programs on PC too and while selling more Xboxes is nice they wouldn’t go under if Xbox sold badly.
I think their endgame plan is to simply get people to subscribe to Gamepass on whatever platform they can have it on, even on Playstation if possible.
I'm hearing Microsoft will never allow Xbox to lose money since the first console came out. Xbox is still here and has spent more in the last 12 months than its competitors in 10 years. It doesn't matter if a game was selling more on the platform with more users (Sony) with 7.5b Microsoft bought above all the possibility of making but privileging its ecosystem. The investment is Xbox in the long run, not the game itself. When people he will stop thinking of big companies like Amazon Google or Microsoft as if they were the local shop they will understand that certain positions are more important than others in the long run. Gosh...Google announces and closes billionaire projects every 6 months !!! without batting an eye! 7.5b are nothing if they serve to make the brand stronger. And we know full well that the exclusivity of all Bethesda games would. You think Phil doesn't know ?I don’t have any numbers to back it up but I wouldn’t be surprised if all Bethesda games has sold more on Playstation than Xbox or PC. So I’m not sure the numbers would add up to make that strategy seem wise. They can also see what has happened with Minecraft when they left it multiplat.
And Sony has never been in that position after a studio acquisition, except when starting out and buying Psygnosis, and they only have one platform and will fight with claws to keep it relevant just like Nintendo.
MS have their games and OS and programs on PC too and while selling more Xboxes is nice they wouldn’t go under if Xbox sold badly.
I think their endgame plan is to simply get people to subscribe to Gamepass on whatever platform they can have it on, even on Playstation if possible.
It only just dawned on me that id Tech would become a first-party engine when the deal is done.
I wonder if any other MS dev tems will use it
It only just dawned on me that id Tech would become a first-party engine when the deal is done.
I wonder if any other MS dev tems will use it
PS5 exclusiveOr the meltdown if it's announced that not all are exclusive to Xbox (and PC), who knows
hello bbyThe Return of Jeff Grubb. I like that guy.
SHOW US SOME STARFIELD, BABY
PS5 exclusive
Unlikely. There was neither a meltdown when all games were ported to pc nor when xCloud came. Also not many Xbox Fans here, the GAF is like 80% blue.Or the meltdown if it's announced that not all are exclusive to Xbox (and PC), who knows
My only point is that it's not as easy a decision. MS is aware of that as well, and that's the reason why we haven't heard anything definitive (there are ways around the legal ramifications of talking about exclusives before the acquisition process completes).Releasing games on playstation destroy the idea of Bethesda being owned by Ms. We know it. They know it. You will not see bethesda games on Ps ...just xbox + pc + xcloud. 7.5B are nothing for Ms and if they understand that it bring a future improvement to their ecosystem they could spend even more.
Ms doesn't need that cash back immediately those acquisitions are there as a long term project. Will it fail? we don't know
Exactly the same way that Sony explains it to their investors. Probably the same reason that Sony uses for not releasing games on PC at launch.How will they explain why they’re choosing a petty retaliation over more money to investors?
I tried for Skyrim but couldn’t find anything new or trustworthy. You got a link?Bethesda games have sold miles more on PC than PS and Xbox combined.
You can do a quick Google for that fact.
That’s another strategy, I don’t rule out that MS could do it that way too, that’s what they hinted at - first on Xbox.Exactly the same way that Sony explains it to their investors. Probably the same reason that Sony uses for not releasing games on PC at launch.
...and then PC.That’s another strategy, I don’t rule out that MS could do it that way too, that’s what they hinted at - first on Xbox.
Xbox and PC first, and then PS5....and then PC.
This is not really the right answer. This strategy does not help MS grow its Gamepass subscriber base. If MS kept all its games Gamepass exclusive, the subscriber base will grow (console users + PC users).
By putting games on Steam, MS nets roughly the same amount of money (~70%) that it would if it puts an XGS game on PlayStation, and its ecosystem userbase does not grow in both cases.
You make a great point. They need more Game pass subscribers so how will making PlayStation games help them reach that goal?Microsoft will keep PS5 release secret, just like when they did with Tomb Raider something or rather.
18m gamepass subs would need to grow exponentially to support a Bathesda sized publisher and all their games. The bet was on xcloud, but that dream is all but a dream.
By making gamepass as attractive as possible. That also means keeping the price as low as possible. Reality is it will need to be subsidised until (and if ever) it hits critical mass.You make a great point. They need more Game pass subscribers so how will making PlayStation games help them reach that goal?
Microsoft will keep PS5 release secret, just like when they did with Tomb Raider something or rather.
18m gamepass subs would need to grow exponentially to support a Bathesda sized publisher and all their games. The bet was on xcloud, but that dream is all but a dream.
That’s the most logical play1-year timed exclusives (+ DLCs only on Xbox/PC) similarly with what they did in the past with Tomb Raider is an obvious possibility. They wouldn't discuss about other platforms immediatly but they won't close the door in PR language.
These huge single player RPGs tend to be really frontloaded. Once you have kept them exclusive for one year you have already reached all the people that would have realistically jumped into your ecosystem to play those games. At that point not releasing them on other platforms is simply losing money which can be used to cover costs or fund other stuff for the sake of it.
Microsoft in this is probably way ahead of the fans that are screaming for everything to be locked into the Xbox/PC ecosystem forever with very little financial feasibility.
You think making PlayStation games makes Game pass more attractive? How would that work?By making gamepass as attractive as possible. That also means keeping the price as low as possible. Reality is it will need to be subsidised until (and if ever) it hits critical mass.
Why would MS buy Zenimax to get timed exclusives? Sony gets timed exclusives all the time and they didn't have to buy the developers to do so. Do you think MS forgot how to aquire timed exclusives after the Tomb Raider deal you referenced?1-year timed exclusives (+ DLCs only on Xbox/PC) similarly with what they did in the past with Tomb Raider is an obvious possibility. They wouldn't discuss about other platforms immediatly but they won't close the door in PR language.
These huge single player RPGs tend to be really frontloaded. Once you have kept them exclusive for one year you have already reached all the people that would have realistically jumped into your ecosystem to play those games. At that point not releasing them on other platforms is simply losing money which can be used to cover costs or fund other stuff for the sake of it.
Microsoft in this is probably way ahead of the fans that are screaming for everything to be locked into the Xbox/PC ecosystem forever with very little financial feasibility.
Apparently it's completely logical for Sony to publish games only for their consoles, excluding all other console and PC users, and their investors will cheer and embrace it as a great business strategy.Xbox and PC first, and then PS5.
You really think MS has paid1-year timed exclusives (+ DLCs only on Xbox/PC) similarly with what they did in the past with Tomb Raider is an obvious possibility. They wouldn't discuss about other platforms immediatly but they won't close the door in PR language.
These huge single player RPGs tend to be really frontloaded. Once you have kept them exclusive for one year you have already reached all the people that would have realistically jumped into your ecosystem to play those games. At that point not releasing them on other platforms is simply losing money which can be used to cover costs or fund other stuff for the sake of it.
Microsoft in this is probably way ahead of the fans that are screaming for everything to be locked into the Xbox/PC ecosystem forever with very little financial feasibility.
Timed exclusivity and gamepass including all those games makes gamepass attractive. The poster above articulated it well.You think making PlayStation games makes Game pass more attractive? How would that work?
Why would MS buy Zenimax to get timed exclusives? Sony gets timed exclusives all the time and they didn't have to buy the developers to do so. Do you think MS forgot how to aquire timed exclusives after the Tomb Raider deal you referenced?
Good point.Yes, this would really do wonders for Microsofts image/credibility. Give your heads a wobble ffs, just accept you ain't getting Bethesda games on anything other than an Xbox or PC
What? That comparison makes no sense, MS doesn't own Crystal Dynamics. That was a simple timed exclusivity deal just like the hundreds of others we've seen on both sides.1-year timed exclusives (+ DLCs only on Xbox/PC) similarly with what they did in the past with Tomb Raider is an obvious possibility. They wouldn't discuss about other platforms immediatly but they won't close the door in PR language.
These huge single player RPGs tend to be really frontloaded. Once you have kept them exclusive for one year you have already reached all the people that would have realistically jumped into your ecosystem to play those games. At that point not releasing them on other platforms is simply losing money which can be used to cover costs or fund other stuff for the sake of it.
Microsoft in this is probably way ahead of the fans that are screaming for everything to be locked into the Xbox/PC ecosystem forever with very little financial feasibility.
Exclusivity is a pivotal point in acquiring more customers. Nothing more to it.Timed exclusivity and gamepass including all those games makes gamepass attractive. The poster above articulated it well.
Xcloud is the pivotal point in acquiring sufficient subs for MS to lock it all away. Nothing more to it.
I only have PC and XSX, so it’s not wishful thinking for me, I’m just trying to think like MS and that means thinking about what would make them more money.Apparently it's completely logical for Sony to publish games only for their consoles, excluding all other console and PC users, and their investors will cheer and embrace it as a great business strategy.
However, MS must publish their games (though only the ones that Sony fans really want) on every system because their investors will demand it.
Sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking to me.
The meltdown over the reveal that they’re all exclusive to Xbox is going to be one for the ages...