At the beginning of the generation, there were rumours that Sony was acting incredibly aggressively, attempting to sign console exclusives with as many publishers as possible. Ultimately, we’ve seen evidence of that, with the likes of Deathloop, Ghostwire Tokyo, and more recently Final Fantasy 16 all launching first on PS5.
And in the FTC’s ongoing court case against Microsoft, as it seeks to temporarily halt the trillion dollar tech titan’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, chatty Xbox exec Phil Spencer alleged that one of his company’s motivations for buying Bethesda was to block Sony from securing console exclusivity on Starfield.
“When we acquired [Bethesda’s parent company] Zenimax, one of the impetus for that was that Sony had done a deal for Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo and effectively paid Bethesda to not ship those games on Xbox, so the discussion about Starfield when we heard that it was potentially also going to end up skipping Xbox was we can’t be in a position as a third-place console where we fall further behind,” he said.
Spencer didn’t bring any receipts, so it’s unclear what kind of information his company was acting on, although seeing as this isn’t the first time we’ve heard this story, it’s probably safe to assume Sony really was in negotiations regarding console exclusivity for Starfield. Assuming the deal was the same or similar to Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo, it probably would have been one-year timed console exclusivity.
Of course, following Microsoft’s $7.5 billion buyout of the publisher, the game will never release on PlayStation at all now – and nor will any of Bethesda’s other games, like Indiana Jones. We’ll let you decide the lesser of the two evils – either way, it’s interesting to hear the Redmond firm’s motivation for the buyout.
[source twitter.com, via thegamer.com]
Comments 183
You know thats a lie. Bethesda was always PC and Xbox. Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo was not developed by bethesda. Every game developed by bethesda was always best on pc and then xbox as they shared x86 architecture.
There are old Todd interviews on why Bethesda always chose to work with Xbox around the time of Morrowind
Seeing as how Sony locked up ***** games like Deathloop and Ghostwire it's only obvious that they tried to do something with Starfield and presumably ES6
Load of bs. Ms is just being desperate
Well I suppose that's an option when you have over £100 billion to spare....
But at the same time it was only a matter of time before Microsoft got fed up of Sony's deals.
Sony are doing the same things so what's the problem
@Yaycandy Both games were published by Bethesda and had timed exclusivity. At the time of release there was no indication that they would later come to Xbox consoles.
@Wilforce To be fair, both Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo were very clear that the console exclusivity would be one year. It was small print in all the trailers.
Obviously it didn't specifically state they'd be available on Xbox once the time expired, but that's the natural conclusion one could have made. (And ultimately transpired.)
The next time Xbox try do a big exclusivity deal with a 3rd party game why not PS just buy the whole company instead to stop it being exclusive for a year, it's only fair
Well, then Microsoft made the better deal. I never understood why Sony would spend millions of dollars to get a game for one year instead of getting the entire IP for a few millions more to own future installments.
So Microsoft bought out sn entire company and took all of their future games off other platforms to block a year of console exclusivity, but Sony's the bad guy here?
Saying none of bethesda games will ever release on playstation is likely false. Zenimax online's new MMO game probably will. Quake 2 remake might as well.
@Dan12836666 people's outcry stems more so from the fact that most of Sony's exclusives come from in house studios or studios that have a close and long standing relationship with Sony and the other exclusives are usually timed console exclusivity.
Whereas MS are just buying whole publishers
But tomato tomahto
So if only Sony’s competition had the resources to offer developers competitive exclusivity contracts, they wouldn’t have had to resort to…buying said developers outright. Got it.
Too cheap to counter Sonys offer but no problems buying them up instead and taking future games away permanently
It was gonna end up skipping Xbox like Deathloop, Ghostwire did? 🙄
Ol' Phil with some classic clutching of the straws.
They all ended up on Xbox after what, a year? Final Fantasy XVI will be on it in six? Months time too.
They bought Bethesda and in turn Starfield out of pure spite. That's all there is to it.
Tbf though they are playing on this excuse to the Judge, to make him think Microsoft had no choice but to buy them because of bad Sony. But the truth is they would of bought Bethesda anyway even if those deals didn't exist.
I really don’t care about 1 year exclusivity deals as it’s exceedingly rare that I buy a game at launch. Platform holders buying huge publishers and making all their games exclusive forever - clearly a completely different thing for anyone with functioning brain cells.
@get2sammyb Thanks for reminding me about that. I didn’t remember the original trailers featuring that note. It’s a fair point, but doesn’t invalidate MS’s perspective that they were in 3rd place, which is the case they’re trying to make. It just illustrates that they were behind in getting the latest, greatest games to come to their console. The entire situation doesn’t justify Starfield’s console exclusivity - though after the latest demonstration I think I’ll stick to No Man’s Sky.
@MayaMousavi Yeah, exactly. It's like me saying that I spent billions to buy an entire town because a person I don't like was trying to rent a house there, just for a few months perhaps. That would make me sound like a psycho. As you said, they could've just bid more (a lot more) so this notion that it was somehow rational to spend $7.5 billion on a company rather than just bidding higher for exclusives is madness.
This is why Sony need to hurry up and buy square enix before Microsoft try to. Microsoft obviously trying to buy up everything sony has a partnership with to try to push them out of the console market.
@get2sammyb While you’re probably right, part of their supporting evidence are emails indicating extreme frustration that the two titles were exclusive (whether timed or permanent), which supports the case that they are behind Sony.
"They were possibly going to make the game exclusive for a year so we had NO CHOICE but to buy up the entire thing! Trust us, c'mon, for the gamers right!?"
Difference is, on PlayStation it was timed not permanent.
Block timed exclusivity for permanent exclusivity. Nice argument Mr Phil "we want to bring games to more gamers not less" Spencer.
Who gives a flying F to be honest, i know this won't be anything ill even conisder a lose, (no mans sky forever bruh!!) it looks fine but stand it up to of PS's exclusives see how it stands, oh no wait it's bethesda so maybe in 4 years it can match a playable game not riddled with bugs, crashes and save file corruptions
@Triumph741 exactly, the evidence is right there. Like I’ve said, Sony just got owned at their own game by someone with lots more chips that went all in.
Lol, I'm sure microsoft can make deals for starfield exclusivity without buying the whole developers.
@GADG3Tx87 Yup, I have no problem with timed exclusivity, it suck but I have all the backlog I need to wait for the games, like with rise of the tomb raider back then.
@4kgk2 Japan would never allow Ms buy SE we have nothing to worry about.
Seems unlikely, Deathloop and Ghostwire were both high risk games, so funding made sense.
Starfield however, a mainline Bethesda game that basically appears to be Skyrim or fallout in space, was always going to be money in the bank.
Exclusivity, even a year would've been big money I think.
Though yeah, even if there was a years exclusivity in the works, buying the whole company just because of that is clearly a silly justification.
I mean they could have just made a counter offer just for Starfield and left Bethesda 3rd party instead of just buying the whole friggin publisher...just saying. 😅
@MayaMousavi Xbox can’t outbid Playstation. Think about it, 70+% of 3rd party games sell on Playstation. For Xbox to get timed exclusivity they’d have to cover those losses and then a few million more to make it an attractive deal to the devs. They’d be signing up to lose money on the game. In the Xbox 360 era sales were similar to Playstation 3 sales and Xbox had timed exclusives too. It’s only become a problem since Playstation took a huge lead in sales.
It's always funny that Microsoft has been painting themselves as extreme underdogs in this whole debacle. They "lost the console war" and "only resorted to buying Zenimax to avoid Sony getting timed exclusivity on Starfield." If laws weren't there, I imagine Microsoft could buy both Nintendo and Sony, without breaking a sweat. Of course, the FTC lawyers didn't exactly help in the arguments against the merger/buyout.
Microsoft losing the "console war" is not because of Sony, but because of their own incompetence. They don't know how to run their own studios, as evidenced by the fact of a lack of first party titles in the first few years of the Xbox Series launch. Sure, Phil definitely improved their public image after taking over for Mattrick (who was one of the worst leaders there), but I feel Phil is more of a snake in the grass than other executives in the gaming industry.
All I want to know are what the legal fees for all of this totals out to be on both sides. That’s the interesting part of all of it.
I swear to God, highschool kids have better arguments than these people.
No one would buy this. Not unless you're a corrupt judge.
I see the verbal diarrhoea merchant is hard at work with his pr sob stories.
Both companies have been engaged in timed exclusives for well over a decade. Microsoft have taken that one step further by removing the timed part, and are now actively purchasing third party studios and cancelling their development and release on other platforms altogether.
Who in their right mind believes the garbage that routinely comes out of this man's mouth.
@naruball
Thank you!! Tell me about it! It truly boggles my mind sometimes how these people become executives when they sound so dumb. I've literally come up with much more convincing and manipulative arguments in my time to have people dancing like a puppet to do anything I want or get my way. (A thing I'm not proud to admit).
Strong move, it’s THE game that makes people buy an Xbox. At least I did, next to my PS5.
I'm so glad we got our daily dose of Xbox BS. Can you make it into a weekly complication of all Xbox/FTC/whatever crap instead of vomiting 135 articles a day about this?
I don't even understand how Bethesda allowed themselves to be bought for that measly price. I'm surprised people aren't up in arms about this, instead that fackin Activision deal gets all the coverage. This Bethesda buyout is criminal.
@4kgk2 That's exactly how it looks to me,
Sony started a strong partnership with Bethesda, Microsoft buy Bethesda.
Sony have a huge Marketing deal with ABK for Call of duty, Microsoft buy ABK.
Sony have always been the home of the Persona games, Microsoft buys Persona marketing rights.
Sony partner with Square Enix for Forspoken and Final Fantasy exclusives, Microsoft buys.....
You get the idea, this is no coincidence.
Especially when you factor in that leaked email between the top brass at Microsoft saying they want to put sony out of business.
Ya know, this smells like teen BS.
Specially when we now know that MS has deep pockets and could easily outbid Sony in any exclusivity deal, they just choose not to.
If securing Starfield was the whole point, wouldn't it have been more reasonable to just buy exclusivity for that game (timed or otherwise) instead of the whole ass company? As much as Microsoft loves throwing money around willy-nilly, I think they're just making an excuse here.
Wonder if starfield would have been 60 frames on PS5 lol.
@TheArt Outside of Elder Scrolls and Fallout, their other games don't sell gangbusters like other AAA games do, dishonoured only sold 3 million and the sequel 2.5 million, Rage 2 and Prey sold poorly as well, The evil within 2 just over 1 million sales. I'd say their revenue outside of the big two games was pretty low. That money Microsoft paid was mainly for Elder Scrolls and Fallout.
@theMEGAniggle ye I understand that It's no skin of my nose either way l have both systems
Codswallop.
Funny thing is even seeing tthis where they could just bought one of the bigger companies with this kind of motivation and then doing the exact same thing or even worse(Never bringing games from there) shows the hypocricy of it. Hope the deal fails. Get your own ***** together without bullying the competition.
@Wilforce
Starfield isnt to be compared to deathloop and ghostwire as it is a bethesda developed game. Like Fallout and Elder Scroll.
I'll never understand why anyone on Push Square or Pure Xbox defend these companies. I own all three consoles but I'm not blind to the consistently cynical and anti competitive practices both MS and Sony employ. That's just business but as gamers, if either company were to have their way we'd all be far worse off.
Not my comparison but worth repeating.
"MS are a boxer that for years refused to train and exercise. So after years of being pummeled by those that did (Sony, Nintendo) they now want to take steroids so they can be more competitive"
Surprised Matt Booty's email hasnt surfaced here where he said a motivation for buying Bethesda was to put Sony out of business
@daveofduncan
What makes you think that lol? FF7R is still nowhere to be found on xbox 😂
I've said many times that this was the reason the Microsoft bought Bethesda. It should also be borne in mind that Starfield is potentially a system seller, so it is entirely possible that Sony were looking to have permanent exclusivity for Starfield, rather than what they did with both Deathloop and Ghost Wire Tokyo, which would not have been system sellers.
The other thing is that whilst there is no proof, that we have seen, of what Sony were looking to do with regards to Starfield, the people at Bethesda will definitely have good knowledge of what was being sought. I doubt that Spencer would say something disprovable in Court.
Yeah, well... it's not like Sony was forcing them or anything. They clearly needed the financial support and the exclusives are temporary.
The deals are tempting cause Microsoft doesn't know how to make first party titles that sell consoles and their install base sucks.
Let's recall why this all went down after the 360. They wanted always online to access your games and in the later half of the 360 they stopped caring about exclusives. It's not Sony's fault that Microsoft blew it with the Xbox and decided to buy people off out of incompetence. 🤷
What's gonna happen is Bethesda games will now sell much less than before. All for the egos of a company that doesn't know how to do game development.
This would be much easier if MS just dropped Xbox and went third party.
I highly doubt it would have been 60 frames, @Americansamurai1. If you seek out the reasons for 30fps, it makes it clear why it was the better choice. One of the reasons is apparently, 'persistence' meaning that you can take an item from one place, drop it, and it will still be there later in the game. The main reason though, was lighting, from what I understand, and it just wasn't possible to have the sunsets and rises at 60fps. Something like that...
Hey, Xbox. Just put this amount of effort into making some damn games. So bored of this bull**** corporate jostling now.
But I suppose Microsoft/Xbox couldn't create a new IP if they were gifted ten new-IP-creating AI's that run on trillions of dollars, corporate bullying, intellectual property theft, unmarked brown paper envelopes, and gallons of Big Phil tears
😁😁😁
The simple answer is no, @Gaia093, buying timed or all-out exclusivity would not work for Xbox, and it is also the same reason they have not had a single AAA third-exclusive this generation.
Basically, the current ratio of gamers on the PlayStation versus the Xbox is 70/30. For Xbox to seek exclusivity for Starfield, they would have had to compensate Bethesda for losing 70% of potential sales. The game would have sold millions upon millions on the PlayStation, and for Xbox, for the sums to add up and to pay for the exclusivity, they would have had to sell bucket loads of both Xbox consoles and Game Pass subscriptions. The income just wasn't there. There was no guarantees of enough people buying new consoles or subscriptions. However, by outright buying Bethesda, not only do they have a system seller, but they get to keep all of the profits from the game, and that doesn't even factor in the huge back catalogue of games that came with the company. Ultimately, it just made more financial sense to buy the company than seek exclusivity...
@Fiendish-Beaver I was just joking lol
There's no way this is true. Uncle Phil is presumably just trying to claim that Xbox had to resort to desperate measures with Bethesda because of Sony's aggressive tactics. Sounds better than Xbox trying to buy their way to the top.
It’s a shouting contest between the two at this point and I don’t think anyone should be defending one company. On the one hand, yes, Sony has in fact more aggressively this generation and towards the end of last been buying timed exclusivity for titles, and Jim Ryan lobbying about the fact that PlayStation are vulnerable and weak if Xbox were to acquire Activision, even though he contradicts that whole statement when he said in an email that they’ll be more than fine and that they don’t believe Xbox will exclude them…it’s just Sony throwing their toys out of the pram because they won’t in fact be profiting all that much because they’ll be essentially putting money into Microsoft’s pockets if anyone buys one of their games on the PS system.
On the other hand Microsoft thinks they can solve everything with money which is a very bad practice for this industry. Bethesdas acquisition made more sense because Xbox and Bethesda had a close relationship to begin with, much like Sony and insomniac so as much as people want to condemn Microsoft, it’s not unlike what Playstation has done, with Sony lining Squares pockets to ensure Xbox doesn’t get Final fantasy 7, but yet put Cirsis core on the console even though Final Fantasy 7 is a system seller. It’s business at the end of the day, it’s sad to see it come to companies like Sony and MS buying developers left and right to try and compete but here we are
That's a really sad statement, @naruball. So you think the only way that Microsoft can defeat the FTC in Court, is if the Judge if corrupt? That's such an awful thing to read. I'm not sure whether you are passing judgement on the American judicial system, or the Judge in particular, but it seems to me to be a pretty extreme point of view. I would highly doubt the Judge to be corrupt...
Oh, @Americansamurai1! 😂
Come on Sony.. buy Rockstar!! Watch Phil squirm.. that would be the best thing ever.. GTA just screams PlayStation anyways.. that’d be the blow of a lifetime but I’m sure R* is worth more than Sony at this point 😔
So I guess you can basically just say anything and make up whatever facts you want in these cases.
Doesn’t surprise me MS stoop that low and would line up with the reports they’ve been buying up companies to try and push out PlayStation. Hopefully they don’t get their way this time.
Ok Phil. It was to block Sony TIMED "exclusivity" which would have been timed by one year so you'd have gotten it anyway. How about this, FTC tell Spencer to put it on PlayStation in 12 months time like would have been the case with Xbox. That's fair, no?
Let Phil put his money where his mouth is.
I would use that line if I were the FTC. Make it a concession of good faith with the ABK deal since their goal is to bring games to more gamers. Watch him sweat and scramble for words with a line like that. BS your way out of that one Phil.
@MayaMousavi if that ever happened then that would be the end of Xbox
@get2sammyb the thing is a game sells most of it’s copies in the first 6-12 month window. Most of the players that have to play it day one don’t want to buy a console that they have to wait a year and watch the game story be spoiled online. So anyone that is a huge SF would have bought a PS5 to play it day one. The fact that Xbox would have gotten it a year later put’s them in a bad position. Timed deals are tough cause the excitement is gone by time it get’s to other platforms. However MS knew that Zenimax was looking to sell, they knew their upper management was forcing projects and rushing them on the studios to make money on deadlines. A few bad games came out of that and MS took the opportunity, doesn’t hurt that Todd and Phil are friends, so that deal seemed like a easy one to make with how much Bethesda loves PC and how MS supports it day and date.
@WolfyTn Sony don’t have that kind of money. But if Sony bought Rockstar and didn’t bring GTA to Xbox, MS would find a way to keep yearly COD’s and others off PS. That just seems like a big mess for all people included. I own Red Dead 2 on both PS and Xbox, so i suppose i would be fine. But that one isn’t happening.
Then they wasted billions for a game that is going to sell a couple of (steam) millions because 99% of users are going to play it on gamepass one month and then completely forget about it. Ok.
I can live with No Mans Sky, thank you LOL
@UltimateOtaku91 I know the other games don't sell that much but ES/Fallout can be as big if they aren't even already as GTA/RDR. It's just disappointing Bethesda had to sell, I doubt TakeTwo would make themselves available for purchase by either Sony or MS, if anything it'd be some independent group. Shame on Bethesda, if they needed a bailout it shouldn't have been from a console rival. Still, Sony's to blame too, for all that needless aggressive timed-exclusivity BS.
@Rob_230 I’m surprised by that and Jim’s email of what he said. Both Emails seem to have merit. Maybe to the Judge that would just be a wash. But both seem to be usable from both sides.
@Intr1n5ic probably the same people that believed Jim Ryan that without COD PlayStation is finished 🤣🤣🤣. Oh I forgot that was the CMA & FTC.
According to Jim Ryan, it does not make a difference. He would prefer these acquisitions happened, but they will be more than OK even if all these acquired games became exclusives.
@cragis0001 You mean the same CMA who said they have no issue with regard to COD but are more concerned about how the acquisition will affect the future of cloud gaming, that CMA?
I'd believe it. He has not evidence but pretty sure with ghostwire and deathloop, there was an attempt at least.
I mean, they could have bought Bethesda and STILL released the game on PlayStation, like they’re promising to do with COD. They didn’t need to take the nuclear option. I don’t buy Microsoft’s BS on this.
This has revealed more to be about Microsoft then I cared to know about. Before, if the FTC lost I wouldn't have been too disappointed. I want them to win now. What a ludicrous defense by Spencer...
@HonestHick You're surprised by both, are they comparable to you?
We all know the loss of COD wasn't going to be the end of PlayStation, there's no surprise that this was being stated in an internal email. Whereas the other is the Xbox studios boss having a conversation with Microsofts chief financial officer about putting PlayStation out of business.
You could argue that email shouldn't be a surprise either given Microsofts history.
@Cherip-the-Ripper didn't state it as fact but here you go!
https://www.radiotimes.com/technology/gaming/ff16-ps4-xbox-platforms/
@GADG3Tx87 And if they're far from clever themselves, couldn't they hire some competent lawyers who would tell them exactly what to say?
@Fiendish-Beaver you completely missed my point. So let me try to explain again. I'm saying that the argument is so bad that no judge would rule in MS' favour because of that argument alone, as it's simply terrible. MS could still win and the judge would not necessarily be corrupt. But not because of that specific -quite frankly laughable- argument.
If true that's hilarious. Sony tried to spend money to keep games off Xbox again but Microsoft has a bigger wallet.
@Intr1n5ic & who brought up Cloud gaming concern? Sony, Google & Nvidia. Plus the CMA had to back track that I'd wouldn't effect consoles as they couldn't prove it after a year's worth of searching.
l don't get it, yes Microsoft owns Bethesda and obviously most games will be xbox exclusive because they want as many people as possible to religiously subscribe to gamepass (which l think is an excellent service) but why completely can the ps5 version? at least keep it as an xbox exclusive for a year or so then sell it to the dark side, £70 a game to many millions of ps5 players is only going to generate a whole heap of extra cash. you could argue Microsoft doesn't need the extra cash? but its still business, ms can't endlessly spent the kind of money the have been..... or maybe they can! 😁
I still think Starfield will come to both Sony and Nintendo consoles eventually, probably years down the line, and this palava will be a load of stuff and nonsense for nothing.
MS just can't say that for obvious reasons. They need a flagship game and Starfield is the only thing they have to cling on to at the moment.
@dbunny @Old-Red I mentioned this in a post in another article, but Phil has openly stated he would be open to have Game Pass on Playstation. Repeating this bit here:
Tharsman wrote:
So, I do think long play for Phil is to eventually get Sony to cave and allow them to have that EA Play-like treatment. However, realistically speaking, the longer they take to get there, the less likely it is they can go back and port the back-catalog.
If this is a continued goal, its unlikely they will port games a year later, because it lightens the leverage they have on Sony to persuade them on letting them have an EA-style model.
@daveofduncan There is actually no guarantee that FFXVI will end up on Xbox. The six months exclusively only pertains to the PC version.
Nothing was stopping Microsoft from outbidding Sony for timed exclusivity or day one on gamepass rights but you know the real reason they bought zenimax was it was for sale because the founder and ceo was about to bite the biscuit and Microsoft had a mountain of cash and eyes on another monopoly
Sounds like it ended up better anyway. If Sony would’ve got it, it only would’ve been on PlayStation. But because Microsoft bought it, it’s on Xbox PC and you can stream it to your mobile devices, plus Steamdeck
@Intr1n5ic wouldn’t call them comparable, but i think you missed a spot where Jim said he see’s COD on PS for a long long time, only to tell CMA otherwise. I mean i ain’t saying i blame him entirely cause he needed to focus on the biggest game in the deal to block the deal but he knew from the start COD wasn’t leaving and going to be brought to more places. As for the MS email, well that’s just dumb as we need the competition. I found both emails to be bad in their own ways. But that is the heat of competition as there is a lot of money on the line. Not excusing either for the record.
Well xbox bought zenimax now, so it's normal for their games be exclusive to xbox. If Sony bought a third party company, they would also make all their games exclusive to playstation, even those that have been on xbox before. Xbox are being nice enough to still have games coming to PlayStation, such as elder scrolls and the likes. And Activision are looking to sell, whether it's Microsoft or another big company, like maybe tencent. So I think its better if it went to Microsoft.
@Gaia093 The issues with just buying exclusivity for this one game is that the return guarantee isn’t there. It also opens the gate of Microsoft getting in a bidding war over exclusivity for other Bethesda/Zenimax titles since publishers are always going to offer Sony a better deal. Better to just say f it, and buy the company out right.
@IndoorEnthusiast
MS would have to pay a lot more for exclusivity than Sony, because one of the things you are forced to do is compensate the publisher of the game for lost sales, and xbox having a much smaller install base than PlayStation means Sony needs to pay way less for exclusivity.
Could MS technically still afford it? Maybe? But that's money down the drain, its paying someone else for a temporary privilege. Buying the publisher (that as you said, was looking to sell) results in acquired assets that retain value, so its not considered "money spent", its considered money invested.
Rise of the tomb raider had a year of exclusivity on Xbox one. It bombed when it launched 12 months later for $60 on ps4, despite having an 88 on metacritic (which, incidentally, is the same metacritic score as ff16). I don't think it sold any where near as well at launch on PlayStation as Xbox even though PS4 continued to outsell Xbox one.
Timed exclusivity still hurts sales and competition despite what some "experts" on this forum believe. There's a reason Sony has been investing heavily as of late in AAA titles to secure a 12 month exclusivity window. If you have Microsoft's money why wouldn't you attempt to block this practice with a buy out, especially given that Sony scored timed exclusivity with back-to-back Bethesda titles.
If everyone is looking to Microsoft's history as to why this deal shouldn't close, surely it also makes sense to look at Sony's history with Bethesda and assume that starfield would also have been time gated on Xbox?
@Neither_scene Or maybe not even time gated. As far as we can tell, FFVIIR is not time gated on Xbox, it's just gated, period. One would think this would have been possible with a game like Starfield, as well.
@SplooshDmg I think the reason FFVIIR hasn't seen a release on Xbox is that square enix have looked to tomb raider and decided that the 12 month window of exclusivity has made the title financially unviable on Xbox. Probably even more true given how unrealistic a sales target they give for their games.
@Victor_Meldrew they bought bungie for $3.7 billion after Microsoft acquired Bethesda. I'm pretty sure they had the money for starfield timed exclusivity if they'd been given the opportunity
@SplooshDmg There is only 1 way to truly find out if FFVII Remake was blocked from Xbox specifically. Namely, keep an eye out on the launch window lineup for the next Nintendo console whenever that happens. If FFVII Remake comes to that but still not Xbox, then Phil Spencer told the truth. If however it doesn't come to the next Nintendo console, then Phil Spencer lied.
I should be noted here, despite literally owning said company (the basis of his statement) Phil does not explicitly confirm or deny information he/MS would have full access to. No matter which way you slice it
A: He is being vague as possible on purpose when he knows the truth or can immediately speak to someone who does, and won't share it, under oath mind you.
B: Microsoft is so poorly ran that it will buy entire publishers worth billions of dollars based on internet rumors (a place lousy with fake insiders) it doesn't actually investigate.
Neither paints them in a very good light. I still don't see how many people can be pushing for this merger when this company has repeatedly thrown it's fans under the bus with comments such as their exclusives being worse, the Gamepass service they champion is a near failure and money sink, and all sorts of clown shoes stuff in court in this false narrative of a trillion dollar under dog. Instead people are so brainwashed they share images and memes of Microsoft violently beating up governmental agencies, or comparing the CMA block to the supreme court taking away women's rights (seriously Resetera wtf?) because that is the corporate dystopia we live in. Sorry for the rambling lol.
@Grumblevolcano I have actually given a lot of consideration to the fact that 7 Remake could possibly come to a more powerful Nintendo later down the road. Really, though. I don't see any reason to not believe Phil's testimony here, because there's surely evidence on their end to back it up or Sony would be swinging from rafters saying it isn't true. This is REAL court. People might not like what they're saying, but in reality, it's probably the truth or at least a slightly modified version of it, on all parties part.
@Grumblevolcano
Really dont think that is a valid test. For all we know, Sony blocked SE from releasing the game on other consoles, including Nintendo consoles. That would not make Spencer's statement a lie.
And how do you know that it was timed-exclusivity that Sony sought, @GADG3Tx87? Starfield is a system seller, which the likes of Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo are not. It would absolutely make sense for Sony to have bought full exclusivity. Or do you mean timed-exclusivity as in like with Final Fantasy 7...? When it came to FF7, Sony likely had the numbers to hand and established that they had sold X number more consoles because of FF7, and so went back to the Square Enix, and either extended or bought permanent exclusivity (how long remains a mystery)|. The same would likely have happened with Starfield; once Sony had seen the uptick in console sales that the game bought in, they would have returned to Bethesda and done as they did with FF7. That's the best case scenario, more likely, they would have known from the outset the potential for Starfield to sell consoles, and so bought absolute exclusivity...
@Tharsman I think Grumbles point here is that Phil made the claim that games aren't necessarily exclusive to Sony, as much as they are excluded from Microsoft specifically. Like what we saw with VIIR, there was basically an 18 month window that it was PS only, then came to PC. But the agreement could include something akin to Nintendo being fine after x amount of years, but no Xbox ever.
@SplooshDmg That was my point with the thing holding up Nintendo getting it in the Xbox exclusion outcome being that the Switch isn't powerful enough to natively run it. The whole Kingdom Hearts situation showcased very clearly that Switch owners hate cloud gaming so creating a cloud version of FFVII Remake for Switch would just be a waste of resources.
@Fiendish-Beaver
Because if I remember correctly following it's initially E3 teaser it was being whispered around about being a timed PS exclusive and there's no way Bethesda would have made that permanent. Sony wouldn't have the kind of money that game would lose to keep it that way.
As for FF7 that deal was extended and supposedly now expired following its entry to EGS. I can't remember where but I read once that Square Enix had said Sony is not responsible for Xbox being excluded. It is known Microsoft and SE don't have a great relationship. I've tried looking for that statement with no success but it was about two years ago.
IMO StarField isn't a system seller. It'll attract some people granted but I doubt in droves. Personally it looks pretty bland to me and I have no interest in it. Coming from someone who loves FO3, Oblivion and Skyrim. I feel it's being overhyped. We shall see.
I believe that is exactly what Spencer said in Court, @SplooshDmg. He alleged that Sony were paying Developers for exclusivity that only barred games from the Xbox. After a period of timed-exclusivity had elapsed, they could go on to the PC and/or Switch, but not the Xbox.
There must be a full transcript of exactly what was said out there somewhere...
@Grumblevolcano @SplooshDmg I dont think that’s what Spencer is talking about. He is talking on behalf of Xbox, so he will only voice his concerns of Xbox being excluded, but we all know Sony does love to have things excluded from all console competitors.
Nintendo just does not care, and rarely if ever voice their concerns publicly. They do better than anyone even without CoD.
@Grumblevolcano Right, and I don't disagree with you on Squares end of business, I'm just also saying I don't doubt Phil's testimony on this one. I don't think it's wait and see if he's lying, I think it's just true.
I'm not sure whether you saw that I had added to my comment, @GADG3Tx87.
I'm fairly certain that I read on this site that Sony had extended the contract with SE, but that neither party had revealed precisely how long that period was.
Edit: Actually, it was easy to find the article. I don't know how to link stuff, but I searched under 'Final Fantasy 7 extended' and it was the third article down...
@Fiendish-Beaver Yeah, I listened to the entire testimony and that's the way I heard it. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'd stick to my guns that was how it was laid out. I don't think a full transcript actually gets released, it's mostly just hear say at this point, because it's a lot to take in and no one really jotted it all down word for word. Unless we want to make an attempt at stealing the courts own recordings of the trial. LIKE NINJAS.
I watch a YouTuber called JayWood2010, @SplooshDmg, and he listened into the entire hearing, and that is what he said. Jay is a multi-platform guy too. He is not biased one way or the other. If anything, his favourite console is the Switch...
@Fiendish-Beaver
I do highly doubt StarField would ever have been a permanent exclusive to PlayStation. Sony wouldn't be able to keep paying the losses that game would get from multiplatform sales Bethesda would make. It's a safe bet. SE are a much smaller studio and Final Fantasy has a long synonymous history with PlayStation.
Either way Phil's reasoning is ridiculous. If Bethesda didn't keep small titles like Ghostwire exclusive they sure as hell wouldn't do it for a full calibre RPG. Phil is clutching at straws to justify buying the entire publisher for much more than just StarField.
He also knows full well he has no intention putting Elder Scrolls on PlayStation. Elder Scrolls is a respected IP which is definitely a system seller.
I don't think Sony need to buy any publisher/developer at all. Activision and Bethesda exclusively on Xbox would bring the PS VS Xbox install base from 65/35 (there abouts) to what? 50/50 at best? Considering they'd all be on PC as well. So it would be like the 360/PS3 days, where PS3 still outsold Xbox despite not having as good exclusives or hardware.
I might be missing key information but it will not "put Sony out of business" in the slightest. When this is all over, any further acquisitions from MS will be highly questioned.
Just my own opinion but Starfield looks awfully grey and bland. I didn't know you could make space look so boring. It will sell well no doubt though. Avowed is the one that has my attention
@SlipperyFish but did you play pillars of eternity?
@Deityjester nope, honestly never heard of it until now, and seeing it's only on PC that's probably why, as I don't play much PC at all
We WaNt To BrInG GaMeS tO mOrE pEoPlE..
I never liked exclusivity, not from Sony, not from MS.
I’m getting really bored of this and it’s making the games industry look silly. Competition in the past drove innovation and creativity
Probably would've been 60FPS as well.
I've just realised something. Sony secured timed exclusivity of Ghostwire and Deathloop for one year. And Microsoft had to honour that since it was done before the acquisition. It's reasonable to assume that if Sony was intending to take StarField as a timed exclusive then the deal would have been made around the same time and like Ghostwire and Deathloop Microsoft would have had to honour the pre-existing contract. Which obviously means Sony never made a bid for the game because it's announcement was a long time before that acquisition.
Quite possible Phil is lying again or just guessing since if Sony had made the bid way back at the announcement as they did with Bethesda's other games it would be a timed exclusive this year regardless of the acquisition. Phil has no proof and is highly likely using that as cover to get his way with ABK.
@MasterVGuides ... Actually, Sony and Microsoft have similar operating revenue, but Microsoft has much more liquidity, Sony has much more debt.
@SlipperyFish I agree with you 100% I had actually been considering buying a Series S for Starfield, but after the latest reveal I said forget it, it doesn't look like my cup of tea. So maybe next year I'll think about it for Avowed, because that looks great so far.
@Yaycandy it was a statement by xbox’s boss under oath yet you say it’s a lie.
Bold.
And reading through other comments I see others claiming Spencer is lying too.
Alrighty then.
You all know Sony bought exclusivity and the whole of Insomniac after the Sunset Overdrive exclusivity deal by xbox, right? I’d love to see the day Insomniac releases Spiderman on Xbox. To disprove Spencer’s point made.
@MayaMousavi not really. 3rd party games sell 70+% for Playstation. Xbox would have to cover that, plus a few mill more to make it an attractive deal, then release a game that will only get 30% of potential sales. They’re signing up to lose money. Of coarse they could afford it but it’d be pointless.
@tangyzesty I was thinking about getting Series S for Stalker 2 initially, but obviously that's been delayed and I hope the Devs take their time with it. It's also allegedly only a 3-month timed exclusive. But yeah avowed looks like the only console-seller to my taste, a more linear RPG that won't take hundreds of hours to complete suits me more. Outer Worlds is still in my backlog but Obsidian have a pretty solid track record, I have no doubt Avowed will be a cult hit.
@MayaMousavi i’m right what i say. Ok, you answer ya own question. Take the Starfield story, Microsoft heard Sony were lining up a deal for timed exclusivity of Starfield. So MS pay $7.5 billion to stop this. Why didn’t they simply contact Bethesda an say wat ever Sony offer you, we’ll pay 10% more for timed exclusivity to Xbox? Lets say a game sells 20 million, 70% on Playstation. That’s 14 million lets say on average £50 a copy, that’s £700 million. Plus another lets say £5 million sweetner. To then sell about 6 million copies x £50 is £300 mill. A £400 million loss per game!!
@MayaMousavi so answer the question then. If Xbox could do that why didn’t they? Ok, half my figures, 10 mill first year sales, games sell more at release, Xbox still lose £200 million per game. 5 million sales? They lose £100 million per game. 10 games, that’s a billion pound losses.
@MayaMousavi monopolising the gaming industry isn’t lawful. That’s why they’re struggling to pull off the Activision deal. If they get Activision no way would they be allowed to acquire another big dev.
@SlipperyFish Pillars of eternity is actually on consoles too and avowed is set in the same world as POE
Ms was bound to get fed up with Sony's money hatting and join the party. It didn't stop Sony from contining to money hat stuff.
@Deityjester my apologies, I lazily only read the first paragraph on Wikipedia which only mentions the pc platforms. Isometric RPGs aren't usually my cup of tea but I might give it a go if it's on sale
I'll admit I'm getting old, darn it really old actually.... But I still still vividly remember All the timed content of the 360 Era where it seemed like because Xbox was crushing PS3 we got either inferior versions or had to wait months or years because publishers saw a 3rd place console( well that and the stupid cell) so we were always getting the short end of the stick. This never really seems to get brought up, but Sony didn't just start buying the big guns, they spent years reestablishing their brand. I think MS started the right way but were not patient enough and said screw it we will buy our way to the top
Microsoft bought Bethesda because their first party output was dog ***** period.
There is no lesser of two evils. Its just buisnes. At least Starfield is going to be on pc.
@Elitepatriot That's incredibly naive. Of course there is.
@JAMes-BroWWWn buying a company and paying for "exclusivity" are very different things.
If You bought a company the company will not deliver the games for free, the game development costs still need to be payed (salaries, outsourcing of work, resources needed for the development e.g. office space, marketing), You get the IPs, company secrets, unfinished products. But also the obligation to fulfill existing contracts, eventual debts and the risk concerning the success of future products.
Exclusivity deals on the other hand may have very different reasons. First of all it likely means that a developer gets money before the product is released. So, that reduces the risk of the developer or gives the developer the money to actually make the game (this is presumably mostly true for independent developers, [maybe stray or kena]). It may also give the developer access to some of the resources of the platform holder (e.g. Sony) like motion capture facilities, contacts to help attracting actors, musicians, or writers, knowledge to help with the optimisation of the game engine, or maybe just the marketing power. The interest for the platform holder could be that they want to see a game being realised (I guess mostly in the case of indies), but in most cases it is just about having enough incoming content to stir interest of consumers for their eco system without the risk obligations that comes with owning that studio (e.g. if the Sony does not like the next proposal they simply do not have to sign a similar contract again, if Sony would own the studio thei either have to close the studio or make sure that the next game is also successful)..
@MattBoothDev
Microsoft operating revenue is 84 billion dollars, Sony’s is 9 billion. So hardly the same.
@daveofduncan If FF7R is anything to go by i doubt FF16 is hitting Xbox especially as Sony owned tech when into the making of FF16, its getting a PC release but its confirmed it will be a while even after the timed exclusivity wears off.
I disagree with you regarding Starfield being seen as a system seller, and therefore potentially something that Sony would want to lockdown permanently, @GADG3Tx87, but I guess we will have to just disagree on that and move on.
However, I strongly disagree with you regarding the possibility of Spencer lying in Court. He is under oath! I'm not saying people don't lie in Court. Far from it. I worked in Law Enforcement for well over two decades and saw it all too often. However, when people lie in Court, they do so on the basis that they don't think it can be disproved. There will exist a paper-trail regarding Sony's interest in Starfield. Also, Microsoft now own Bethesda, and so will have inside knowledge as to what Sony were seeking at the time. They will have those emails, and any correspondence. Plus, it is entirely possible that Sony made an offer for exclusivity, following which Bethesda went to Xbox seeking a counter-offer, and received a buyout proposal instead.
The other question you have to ask yourself, is, if Sony were not interested in buying Starfield exclusivity, why did they not deny it last year when the story first surfaced? Indeed, why have Sony not popped up since Spencer appeared in Court, and then vehemently deny the accusation? The answer is likely the same for both questions; there exits verifiable proof that Sony did seek a period of or full exclusivity. There is almost certainly paper-trail evidence of their initial approach to Bethesda. Sony will know this, and will not want to be seen to say something in public that could later be revealed and show them to be lying.
I get people want to defend their chosen platforms. Personally, I try to remain as objective over things as I possibly can, but undoubtedly, I still have my biases. However, it is quite often eye-opening to me, the lengths some people will go to either justify Sony's actions, or throw shade at Microsoft (and this is not aimed at you @GADG3Tx87). Sometimes all reason seems to be completely thrown out...
So very much a "I'll take away all the toys cause you aren't sharing fairly" kind of child mentality.
Starfield looks great… 30 fps though? That’s a deal breaker for me, as I was genuinely thinking of getting a series X just for it. Surely the most powerful console in the world would run it fine lmao
@WallyWest I’m totally fawning over FF16 atm but my god the frame rate in non-battle sequences needs some work
@MayaMousavi Yeah, you are right, Microsoft could outbid Sony If they wanted, even If It means they would have to pay 3X more, they have the money, even If it's not profitable for them.
Of course PlayStation users would do the same that they did crying and cursing, forcing Microsoft to reveal when the exclusivity Will end, like they did for Rise of the Tomb Raider, and never did with Sony.
But Microsoft is smarter them that, that is how they become a giant, they dont do bad investiments, why pay for financial loss, when you can buy the publisher and have ALL the profit from It, It is more expensive, but it is not just money spent, it also becomes an investment.
And again, remember, while paying for exclusivity will cost Xbox, buying the publisher will generate profit.
@Fiendish-Beaver
I guess we will have to simply disagree as you say. I personally don't feel StarField is on the same calibre as the likes of Bethesda's past games. But maybe I've grown tired of them. Oblivion and FO3 were masterpieces imo. Skyrim while a great game didn't hit the same high as Oblivion for me and FO4 no where near FO3. I feel Bethesda have been on a slow downward spiral in creativity. For that reason StarField looks uninteresting to me. We'll see.
I'm not defending Sony. Far from it. They've done many things I disapprove of under new leadership and I've considered abandoning PlayStation under its new direction. But I simply don't trust Phil Spencer. Oath or not he's lied many times, as has Jim Ryan. They're all as bad as eachother.
Phil once said during the Xbox One. "Exclusives are anti-consumer and counter to what gaming is all about. When we all play, we all win". Now look at him. He said he doesn't intend to take games away from gamers before the ink dried with Zenimax then when the deal was done his statement was "case by case basis". He changed his tune. He always says what people want to hear in the moment.
He can easily wiggle out of that oath down the line and ship modes of CoD or any game to PlayStation while still arguing he fulfilled his agreement. The gaming industry has too many caveats to get around it. So I never take him at his word. Even during the ABK process many of his statements have been ridiculous and some a blatant lie. That's not to say Jim hasn't told his fair share.
I've worked with Microsoft before in the tech field. Albeit years ago. They (and many others) are more slimy and cutthroat behind closed doors than the public can imagine. (To clarify I had close interactions with them during working in the tech industry, I wasn't employed by them.)
I also care nothing for ABK beyond Spyro. CoD means nothing to me and couldn't care less if it became an exclusive.
If you are genuinely interested in buying an Xbox in order to play Starfield, @Mikey856, then I strongly suggest you look into the reasons why the game is running at 30fps. It is not as simple as poor coding, or the inability of the console. There is much more to it than that. There are many videos and articles out there explaining the decision, and why 30fps is the right choice for this particular game. My take from watching some of these videos is that it's to do with item permeance, lighting and AI simulations. Basically, it would not be possible to do these things at 60fps. Digital Foundry have done a video explaining why 30fps is the best choice for the game. Don't be blinkered into thinking 60fps is always the only way to go...
I just don't believe that Starfield was going to have a exclusive deal.
Starfield was being developed by the main studio.
Why would they stop it going on pc and xbox, stopping millions of sells worldwide.
The only evidence Phil has got is deathloop and ghost wire Tokyo. But reality is those games weren't from Bethesda main studio they were small budget games and experimental games with new mechanics.
Its crazy to think they are trying to blind side the judges by using this.
Starfield was always going to be a multiplatform game.
Plus they didn't just by Bethesda they went and bought the entire parent company with many other businesses underneath it.
Like someone else commented and we have actual evidence of this.
But Xbox is the Boxer who never wanted to train and put the work in and then got behind so turned to steroids to chest their way to the top.
People also push aside the fact Microsoft paid for exclusive rights to the second tomb raider reboot game for entire year.
This would be fine but the fact is the first game was a multiplatform game which they then denied gamers access to the sequel for a year and the fact just like Bethesda.
These games have been always multiplatform.
They dont seem to buying studios to make new and incentive games but rather buy up all pre existing franchises and take them away from many gamers just to spite competition.
I'd like someone to show me when Playststion has ever taken a studio which hasn't been associated with them for a long period.
This is merely a continuation of the social media & games media campaigns via friendly Xbox Microsoft sources over the past year that Sony TIMED exclusives are somehow permanent & anti gamer evil whilst poor little 2.3 trillion Microsoft Xbox buying out entire AAA 3rd party multiplatform publishers & cancelling planned PS versions across the board & making them exclusives is pro-gamer & more competitive!🙄
You would in a normal world wonder how such a ridiculous defence could hold up in court. Unfortunately have read of concerning comments where when pressed on say future iterations of Diablo continues to get PS versions,the judge overruled the line of what was a perfectly valid point to highlight Microsoft's anticompetitive intentions & remove it & other multiplatform IP's from Playstation permanently!🤯
It is truly a bizzaro world where somehow Sony's timed exclusives are pushed as anti-gamer but Xbox continually not only gets away with anticompetitive actions like buying Zenimax & now likely Activision Blizzard,but still actively engage in timed exclusives ala Stalker 2 or for Gamepass indies just as much as they insinuate about Sony (as do Ninty),but only Sony seem to get flak for it 😕
What can I say, @GADG3Tx87? I've never played Oblivion, and I preferred Fallout 4 to Fallout 3, though I had more time to complete 4 than 3, so that might be a factor.
I think Bethesda have a lot to prove after the disastrous release of Fallout 76, which might also explain the two year extension provided to them when it comes to release of Starfield.
However, I do feel that Spencer has not gone back on his word following the acquisition of Zenimax. It's a play on semantics, I know, but you cannot take something away from someone that does not possess it. Microsoft still ship Minecraft, and the entire Zenimax back catalogue remains on the PlayStation, plus Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo (for which there were written contracts) were still honoured. However, other games that have not been released is another question, and are being treated as such. As I say, it is semantics, and the answer Spencer gave is something most Politicians would look upon with pride, but he didn't lie. What he could be accused of is not being straight with us. Equally, those asking the questions, could have asked ones that were not so easily answered with such vague answers...
Microsoft still have themselves to blame. They wouldn’t let Square launch FFXIV on the Xbox because they didn’t want them to have a way around taking 30% of that sub fee which Sony were happy to accommodate, for example.
In that case it was a combination of MS burning that bridge and the 20% sales share of FFXV on Xbox. (Stats from UK, not Japan)
Microsoft could have done their homework. It took Nintendo 2 generations to recover from the loss of FFVII to the PS1.
1 year timed exclusivity is far better than permanent exclusivity. Also there's no reason Microsoft couldn't also try to get timed exclusivity on all of these by bidding more than Sony.
I wonder what percentage of Skyrim sales were from Playstation, which they'll now be missing out on with Starfield.
@naruball Well you going to tell me why? Is it ok for what Sony did with Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Final Fantasy 16, and Ghost Wire: Tokyo to name a few when it came to trying to keep them exclusive? Personally I think its smart, they got my ass to buy PS5. Now Microsoft should make games console exclusive if they want me to buy a new xbox, for now it going to pc gives me no reason too(and thank the Lord for that).
There's two things at play in your comment, @AyanamiReign.
Firstly, the current ratio of gamers on the PlayStation versus the Xbox is approximately 70/30. For Xbox to seek exclusivity for Starfield, they would have had to compensate Bethesda for losing 70% of potential sales. The game would have sold millions upon millions on the PlayStation, and for Xbox, for the sums to add up and to pay for the exclusivity, they would have had to sell bucket loads of both Xbox consoles and Game Pass subscriptions. The income just would not be there. There were no guarantees of sufficient people buying new consoles or subscriptions. However, by outright buying Bethesda, not only do they have a system seller, but they get to keep all of the profits from the game, and that doesn't even factor in the huge back catalogue of games that came with the company. Ultimately, it just made more financial sense to buy the company than seek exclusivity.
2. Had Microsoft bought timed exclusivity, they would still have had to pay millions upon millions to do so, though admittedly less, and would, in terms of percentages, probably have had to sell even more consoles that they otherwise would (I think it safe to assume that they would not have put it on Game Pass, as too many people would have paid for just a months subscription to make that viable). However, as many did with Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo, people would have just waited a year for it to arrive on the PlayStation, safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of bugs would have been squished, and maybe even that they would be getting some expansions thrown in too. Basically, there was no way of making timed-exclusivity viable for the Xbox either.
3. As for not porting it over to the PlayStation at all, once Microsoft owned Bethesda, they would have again looked at the stats and sums and realised that, as you say, the vast majority of sales of previous Bethesda games were on the PlayStation. If you assume that's 70%, which is where the 70/30 split comes into affect, then Sony would be keeping 30% of revenues from sales of Starfield on its platform. The likely numbers involved would reach well over 100 million profit to Sony for doing nothing other than selling the game. I guess that was a pill too bitter for Microsoft to swallow...
@CallMeDuraSouka I understand your point but after all the PS3 still managed to outsell the 360 globally. Not saying it was better, I own/ed both, and like both equally for different reasons. But yeah, Sony put their heads down and worked on software and hardware, made some smaller acquisitions, Xbox cocked it up, and the PS4 took a landslide victory. Why Sony don't just focus on working now I don't know.
@Fiendish-Beaver only problem is since ps5 I have been blinkered into the 60fps way of things. I’ve found FF16 a little but of a let down In that regard
Speaking of Starfield, the official Bethesda support twitter account revealed that the physical version of the game is just a code in a box.
@cragis0001 completely off topic but man do I love your profile pic. Those games were absolutely incredible and way ahead of their time. I wish someone would fish the IP out of limbo and get it going again
Amazing, Microsoft buys Bethesda because they were worried about their games getting blocked on the Xbox….. and then they block Bethesda games from being on PlayStation!! You couldn’t make this craziness up! Microsoft smoke some crazy shiz!!
Typical you know it be more successful releasing it on everything 😂
That's business I suppose. Tie the market up have everyone buy your device. Soon be a browser window and a android type box or fire stick. But hey I prefer the physical disc long may that last 🤞
Any hoo I just Wana play the game.
@SgtTruth and no offence here either but I like a solid 60fps. Sue me
@Bez87 Well it leaked before the acquision, it leaked during the acquisition, it leaked after the acquisition, it was said in court now.
Bethesda was desperate for money, and we did have leaks that Sony was spending a lot of money in exclusives, full or not, also BGS games were exclusives in the past.
As i have already said, to someone else here:
"Yeah, you are right, Microsoft could outbid Sony If they wanted, even If It means they would have to pay 3X more, they have the money, even If it's not profitable for them.
Of course PlayStation users would do the same that they did crying and cursing, forcing Microsoft to reveal when the exclusivity Will end, like they did for Rise of the Tomb Raider, and never did with Sony.
But Microsoft is smarter them that, that is how they become a giant, they dont do bad investiments, why pay for financial loss, when you can buy the publisher and have ALL the profit from It, It is more expensive, but it is not just money spent, it also becomes an investment.
And again, remember, while paying for exclusivity will cost Xbox, buying the publisher will generate profit."
@Victor_Meldrew "as if Sony could afford that" - your words, not mine. Clearly, Sony could afford that as they've been doing an awful lot of AAA timed exclusivity deals for "negligible returns" this generation. Most recently - final fantasy 16, which is part of the biggest JRPG franchise in the world.
Also, some of these timed exclusivity deals are for console exclusivity. Keeping a game off a rival console but still allowing release on PC is cheaper than full timed exclusivity.
The reference to the bungie deal was to highlight the fact that Sony clearly aren't strapped for cash. They clearly believe in the value of timed exclusivity, and based on their prior dealings with Bethesda it doesn't seem improbable that they were looking to tie up starfield.
Where is the news about the intern Jim Ryan email, where he states that he thinks CoD will stays multiplatform?
I personally don't feel StarField is on the same calibre as the likes of Bethesda's past games. @GADG3Tx87 That's because alot of the good devs that made skrim and Fallout 3 & 4 left after and before Fallout 76.
@GADG3Tx87 (Personally it looks pretty bland to me and I have no interest in it. Coming from someone who loves FO3, Oblivion and Skyrim.) I think Star Wars Outlaws look alot better. Maybe that because it has a higher budget and a better game engine.
It’s what MS does. They buy or steal their way in. Disk Defrag, Os/2 IBM, Nokia, Word Perfect, Novell, forcing OEMs to install windows etc. They’re never gotten where they are because have the best products. “Free hand of the market” only works when it’s a level playing field, which is pretty much never.
@JAMes-BroWWWn it’s hardly a few mill more!! Timed exclusivity likely costs in the tens of millions. Activision is costing $69 billion!! That’s 69 thousand, million!!!
Some of you who are defending Microsoft becareful what you with for! Keep this in mind have you ever wondered why windows os is the only operating available besides Mac os? Because Microsoft soft owns monopoly on the market so theirs no other choices and any who attempts to make another os they buy it up to keep it from going to mass market. Here's a story you can Google way back in the day when dial up was still a thing. A guy made a os goes in Microsofts office keeps his os and then tells him that no one is interested in it. They keep it and it becomes windows xp masked with the name windows and Microsoft branded. Yea theirs Linux free open source but even with them Microsoft has caused them legal issues . This is a terrible company and we're stuck with the only option being a memory sucking os with no other choices. I'm glad their is people trying to protect us and I'm glad no one is looking the other way. This company is a void hell it's even ballsy enough to try and buy Nintendo and got laughed out of their office. Google that too! Their trying to monopoly the gaming industry and if that could ever happen . The console and the os they call xbox would be way more sorry cause their the only game in town they can cut cost all the way around because their is not another choice !
Some people on here forgetting Microsoft paid third party publishers/devs for
Ryse Son of Rome
Dead Rising 3
Tomb Raider 2
Titanfall 1
Alan Wake 1
Quantum Break
And some of those have still yet to see the light of day on a playstation console.
So please stop your Hypocritical Bu*****t
Wasn't Ryse Son of Rome meh game? They can keep it.
Good guy Microsoft buying an entire publisher to make their content exclusive in order to prevent a competitor from making one game temporarily exclusive.
Hopefully, the FTC kills this disaster.
Lexluther23 wrote:
Windows XP was an iteration of Windows NT, not a new OS "acquired" from "some guy". I seriously would love to see a source proving otherwise, though. I'm always interested in that nerdy OS stuff.
It’s a little disappointing to see how this article feeds “console war” mentality. As evidenced by the comments.
Yeah. Sure. Spencer made it up.
That's why Imran Khan (former GameInformer employee) said in 2020 that Sony was negotiating securing Starfield as PlayStation exclusive . I'm sure he is also Microsoft shill
But honestly it's hilarious. Because if it's really true, then it is a prime example of Sony "***** around and finding out"
@UltimateOtaku91 Ehhh
You sure about that list mate?
Ryse Son of Rome, Alan Wake and Quantum Break are literally first-party games published by Microsoft Studios (now Xbox Game Studios). It's same as Sony partnering with Insomniac when they were independent. It's first-party relationship because platform holder is publishing a game.
I will of course give you Dead Rising, Titanfall and Rise of Tomb Raider. But you also forgot to add that last "moneyhatted" exclusivity came in 2015 and Microsoft stopped doing that because they did not helped them that much and because of public outrage around RoTR. So nowadays they are focusing on smaller titles tied to GamePass deals like STALKER 2, Darktide etc. Which can hardly be compared to moneyhatting spree of Sony.
Deathloop, GhostWire Tokyo, Final Fantasy XVI, Final Fantasy VII Reunion, Forspoken, Silent Hill 2, KOTOR Remake... do I really need to explain all of this?
It's funny that people needs to go back to the first half of last decade to "prove their point." And they are even going back to 360 era despite the fact, that almost nobody from that era (Don Mattrick, Peter Moore) are still at Xbox.
But I mean. Of course. Sony securing third party exclusives are "doing great business steps." Microsoft securing exclusives is "How dare they do that and skip PlayStation?" Almost as if skipping PlayStation is some kind of heresy.
I get what you are saying, @UltimateOtaku91, but in the interests of balance, what games did the PS4 have as AAA third-party exclusives during that same period? Your comment would suggest that there were none on the PlayStation during the PS4 era. I'm pretty sure they had a fair few, probably even more than the Xbox, which would go some way in explaining why Xbox lost so badly during the last generation.
Also, what third-party AAA games has the PS5 had since it came out?
I can help you with the Xbox Series; they have not had a single one...
Removed - inappropriate
Better Microsoft than Sony. If sony was a little more PC and mod friendly then maybe I'd have some sympathy but Starfield locked to just mods that use pre-existing assets? That'd kill the game dead. Sony's mod policy is abysmal.
Also for everyone saying he's lying, he said this in court. He wouldn't risk legal trouble over this lmao.
Not that I like exclusivity at all and I hope it does come to PlayStation one day. Same as I hope PlayStation Exclusives one day come to Xbox and PC. But Bethesda was desperate and practically on fire due to financial mismanagement form the higher ups. They were gonna sell to someone and as someone who has enjoyed modded Skyrim for almost twelve years... better Xbox than PlayStation.
@Friendly Insomniac didn't get purchased until after the release of Spider-Man might I add was actually present to Xbox to develop first before being brought to Sony after Xbox turned it down. Out of its 30 yr history they only release 3 games for Xbox so your argument makes no sense.
@pharos_haven why not?
Sony purchases a company that has exclusivity deals with xbox. Who’s to say Insomniac didn’t release Spiderman on Xbox to get the deal done?
Microsoft purchases a company that has exclusivity deals with playstation.
Same story.
@Friendly Not the same story if you did your research you would know that Insomniac wanted to make a sequel with Xbox for Sunset Overdrive and Xbox decided not to. Do you see Sony trying to make Sunset Overdrive or a sequel taking it away for Xbox gamers?
It's clear based on ALL your comments you care nothing for Sony and that's fine but find some other place to Troll or come up with constructive criticism
@pharos_haven it’s the same story. Company buys company they already have a working relationship with. Company from then on makes games for said company only.
@SacredPYRO exactly. With the popularity of RTS lately you'd think it would be a no brainer to revive the god genre or at least remaster or HD upgrade both Black & White games. I'd buy day one if it was announced.
@cragis0001 there are a couple of videos around on YouTube of why the game can't be re-released. Something to do with proprietary rights to the IP and EA being *****. GoG.com have even looked in to trying to get their hands on the license but it's a no go.
@SacredPYRO shame as I'd love to play them again 😭
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...