Final Fantasy 16 would have come to PC and Xbox day 1 with PS5. Sony payed to not let that happen.
The Zenimax purchase allows all their studios to continue making games at all.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Jeff Grubb/Venturebeat: Xbox's Bethesda acquisition is evidence of blockbuster gaming's volatility
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
- Status
The Zenimax purchase allows all their studios to continue making games at all.
Not really. First of all, of course Zenimax wanted to be sold otherwise they wouldn't agree on it. But obviously MS didn't buy them to save them but because they wanted control over those IPs to make Xbox more appealing. If those popular, traditionally multi platform IPs end up exclusive to one platform, it's MS' choice.
Lmfao, his article was well thought out then he had to go ahead and say that crap.
Not sure about developers, but you can bet people in the admin/marketing areas will get consolidated.
This doesn't really make total sense. A publisher paying for timed exclusivity could also reduce the risk on a project, and still allow it to release everywhere at a later date.
I agree with the article in general, though, as it did feel like Bethesda games were dropping in price rapidly after release. Presumably they weren't performing as well as they could.
So keeping an entire publisher off of the competing platform is better and great for gamers ?
How can one have such a bad take ?
Honestly? There's really only four games Bethesda published all console generation that I can point to and confidently say "this did well commercially"; Fallout 4, Elder Scrolls Online and the two Doom games. The rest flopped in one way or another. That's why I understood why they accepted moneyhats from Sony for Deathloop and Ghostwire; neither Tango nor Arkane has had a commercial hit yet. The exact same logic can be applied to ZeniMax selling up to Microsoft - Bethesda has been on a commercial cold streak all gen. (The reputational damage to Bethesda Game Studios after the tyre fire of Fallout 76's launch doesn't help).
7.5 billion dollars is far to much for this... Just think of Star Wars.. Disney bought it for 4 billion.
Either Microsoft is bad at negotiating contracts or Lucas didn't want any money for one of the most successful brands on this planet
but they would have continued making game without the acquisition?
They were about to accept a money hat for Starfield too if rumours are correct.
Not arguing against the rest of your point, but Respawn literally ran out of money to make the game before MS stepped in iirc.
arkane and remady fill the same mind space for me. thhey make games people need to play to understand, and in that regard getting their games on gamepass is a good thing.
Lmaoooooooooooooooooooo. The reaction to this deal shows what I've always said: people only get angry when it's the other side making the deals. If Sony were to go and sign Capcom the same people cheerleading this deal would be up in arms and vice versa.
This makes no sense. FF16 is still coming to other platforms. That's infinitely better than permanent exclusivity (to the extent that's actually what happens).
Well.....honestly, the writing was on the wall for Bethesda when The Evil Within, Prey, and even Doom suffered low numbers. As big as they were and how much they were praised at the time, it is kind of sad but I thought TESVI would have been the smoking bullet to change things around. I'm sad we won't get to see it in the reality I would have loved to see it in, but I guess at least they can breathe a little knowing that they are behind something much bigger than gaming.
It's not that weird of a take? Yes, Microsoft is purely acquiring studios for the sake of making money. They're a multi-billion dollar corporation after all. Having said that, I do agree that fundamentally, there's a difference between trying to grow your internal development capabilities and intentionally paying money to keep a game off of the competition's platform. You acquire a studio not only because you want their games exclusive to your platform, but also because it gives you free rein to grow them, mold them, direct them, and use them as you need. Yes, that developer's games may have been on your platform anyways, but you have zero input in what games they make, the size / growth of their studio, etc. You're for forced to take their output as is, and that's if the competition doesn't strip it away from you. The only reason you pay large sums of money to make intended multi-platform games exclusive or timed exclusive is to keep them off of competing platforms. That's it. There's no strategy beyond that. I would say that both methodologies have similar end results, but there's way more nuance than "the games are exclusive at the end of the day, so end of story."
Lol does no one in this thread understand nuance? Sounds like Zenimax was looking to sell or downsize Bethesda staff. Sony paying for exclusivity on Deathloop doesn't prevent studio closures or layoffs (maybe delays at best). He's not saying MS saved Bethesda, as it's not like they were going under, but outright buying the company and supporting all the studios does ensure they all get to keep working on their games. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but I'm surprised people are outraged over a pretty reasonable take...
Edit: Just for some clarification, this isn't to say MS swooped in to the rescue so much as they saw an opportunity & took advantage of it. But I think the point still stands.
Edit: Just for some clarification, this isn't to say MS swooped in to the rescue so much as they saw an opportunity & took advantage of it. But I think the point still stands.
Yup, exactly, so his last point is not well thought out at all.
I think both are bad, and TBH I don't prefer one over the other.
On one hand, if MS decides to release whatever game only on XSX and not on PC (I hope they won't), this kind of forces me to buy a 500€ machine that I don't really want at the moment. But if I need to, I'll do it and try to use it with other games and make the most out of the purchase.
On the other hand, buying FFVIIR earlier this year was not the best experience. You want to play it ASAP and discuss it with the friends, so you buy the PS4 version, knowing that the game will be available on PC a year later with improved framerate, hopefully improved textures and maybe new content. So you're paying for the early version of the product on a less than ideal system in this case. Of course it's a small money investment and you can always buy the PC version later when it's cheap, but in some way I felt "forced" to buy the game because 12 months is a lot of time.
Both scenarios are bad for the consumer, but a "forever exclusive" usually is clear, while timed exclusive normally don't specify the exclusivity period or which platforms will receive it next.
I wonder if it had been Sony buying Zenimax and removing Fallout/Elderscrolls/Doom etc from Xbox would these same people be saying that Sony did a good thing.
What the hell? Making beloved multiplatform games apart from other consoles forever is better than time exclusivity? What a pile of nonsense. It seems a fanboy wrote that article...
Having give the article a read I gotta agree completely. Zenimax was in a bad position and there wasn't a good way out of it. The ballooning costs of game development kinda made continuing on as normal impossible with so many under performers. Might as well sell off your stake and if you want to get back into games. Just wait a few years to see where the dust settles.
Or Sony money to help with the cost of development and it being next gen only .
Plus Zenimaxy would have keep on making game with out getting buy unless you think they would cancel there current games.
Yeah, he made a bunch of assumptions to write his article, well thought out, but doesn't mean he's right.
Yeah, that would be to insure against BGS' reputational damage extending into their single player titles. As a general rule, businesses value guaranteed money way more than un-guarenteed money, even if the potential of the latter is way higher.
I think that it's flat out wrong. The point of a developer or publisher taking that money in either instance, ideally at least, is to continue making games.
Grubb with another idiotic take? Can't say I'm surprised.
The core concept of the article is interesting and worthy of discussion. Some of the conclusions made from what are seemingly assumptions, however (especially the tweets), are nonsensical. Attributing self-serving greed to one company and benevolence to another when the result for the consumer is the same or worse instills a console warrior mentality into an article that doesn't need it.
The whole point of time exclusive from the publisher point of view is to reduce the risk of a project and ultimately ensure a better financial future.
Yeah right, poor Bethesda. They had to sell skyrim on all platform to keep them afloat.
People just trying to justify their hypocrisy. Every deal sony made was bad and anti consumer "because big publishers don't need money" and Microsoft buying up totally healthy studios was seen as a financial rescue of small independent studios.
Now even the acquisition of a huge publisher is spinned that way. Just be honest once. You like them deals if your preferred platform does it and you don't like it if the other does it.
People just trying to justify their hypocrisy. Every deal sony made was bad and anti consumer "because big publishers don't need money" and Microsoft buying up totally healthy studios was seen as a financial rescue of small independent studios.
Now even the acquisition of a huge publisher is spinned that way. Just be honest once. You like them deals if your preferred platform does it and you don't like it if the other does it.
I've noticed Grubb and some other people in that circle being seemingly staunch on this, but very stern on Sony going the other way...
Lol
Yep MS being the white knight saving Bethesda from Bankrupcy...Quite the reach no ? As I told him on Twitter, this move had 2 objectives :
1 - Enhancing gamepass
2 - Excluding Bethesda games from Sony platforms
Yep MS being the white knight saving Bethesda from Bankrupcy...Quite the reach no ? As I told him on Twitter, this move had 2 objectives :
1 - Enhancing gamepass
2 - Excluding Bethesda games from Sony platforms
A bit surprised at the makers of Skyrim and Fallout getting the "this acquisition is okay because they need the support" treatment but I admittedly don't know their financial situation. Just a bit surprising considering how big they seem.
And yet despite all of this, many think that a $10 monthly fee is the solution. (I know there's more depth to this discussion in terms of recurring revenue and so forth, but I'm fascinated to see how the financials work.)
gotta frame the billionaires the best you can so you're in their favor when they decide to stop being nice
If the argument is Zenimax would've closed Arkane and Machinegames had they not sold to Microsoft...I could buy that. The studio is more valuable to Microsoft than it is to Zenimax, because Microsoft doesn't need the games to sell x number of copies to be profitable.
And so now we've dragged this into console war BS 'cause people will just read this and not engage with the actual article. Good job.
--------------------------------------------
I'll read the article shortly because it looks good, but from the parts put in the OP I can kinda get the gist. It's fascinating how Bethesda entered the generation versus how it's leaving it. When they entered the generation, they were a juggernaut. Skyrim was a monster success and Fallout was one of the most anticipated games ever. They upgraded to the point that they could have their own E3 press conference.
Wolfenstein was one of the first next-gen games that came out people wanted to buy. But like Jeff said, they did that #saveplayerone idea, with a commercial at the game awards and everything. But that shit worked "so well" the year afterwards every thing they pushed had some kind of major multiplayer or games as a service element.
Since then they've had multiple misses, either critically, commercially, or both. I can see a scenario where the owners got cold feet, realized games aren't going to get cheaper to make, and got out of things early. Microsoft is all too happy to bolster it's first party line-up while also lending stability to those studios while they develop new properties. It says something that the founder of Arkane dipped and basically was like "Making AAA games feels like making a product rather than a game". Those aren't the words of someone working at a place where everything is great.
but even that model has a cost. your constently piching projects and hoping ms or sony bite on them. if that model
Since you yourself haven't read the article:
I don't think it will.
When Microsoft bought Minecraft for 2 billion, the first move wasn't to take it off other platforms, it was to sell it to as many people as possible so they could realize a return on that 2 billion
- Status