• 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.

Iron Eddie

Banned
Nov 25, 2019
9,812
Yes, I said it would be less necessary for Sony to buy Bethesda, thus them doing so would be disproportionately harmful and people could be considered more aggrieved justifiably because they're already in the lead and it would take games away from other platforms for much less return.

What are you arguing with here?
That people should be considering both platforms regardless of how they attain their exclusives. Third party have always been used as a wedge between two communities anyways. People buy Nintendo systems mainly for Nintendo games but with Sony and Microsoft there has always been a bigger fight over third party/multiplat titles. Well, then people should buy all 3 then or just buy the system based solely for first party like they already do for Nintendo.
 

fiendcode

Member
Oct 26, 2017
24,910
The other issue with Switch and xCloud is Nintendo is unlikely to ever offer a 5G version of the Switch, making phones a more desirable way to use xCloud portably once it becomes more commonplace.

Eventually those fold out phones will likely take off too, giving you access to a bigger screen.

Is there really going to be a huge desire to play xCloud games on a Switch with probably a lower end display than what a future phone can provide.
It's not just xCloud but also GamePass that'd be the aim. Native software in addition streaming. As is there are already a bunch of MS owned games on Switch to go towards that:
  • Broken Age (Double Fine)
  • DOOM (id Software)
  • DOOM Eternal (id Software)
  • Fallout Shelter (Bethesda Game Studios)
  • Grim Fandago: Remastered (Double Fine)
  • Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice (Ninja Theory)
  • Minecraft (Mojang Studios)
  • Minecraft Dungeons (Mojang Studios)
  • Ori and the Blind Forest (Moon Studios)
  • Ori and the Will of the Wisps (Moon Studios)
  • Pillars of Eternity (Obsidian Entertainment)
  • Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire (Obsidian Entertainment)
  • Rad (Double Fine)
  • The Bard's Tale ARPG: Remastered & Resnarkled (inXile Entertainment)
  • The Elder Scolls: Blades (Bethesda Game Studios)
  • The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Bethesda Game Studios)
  • The Outer Worlds (Obsidian Entertainment)
  • Wasteland 2: Director's Cut (inXile Entertainment)
  • Wolfenstein: Youngblood (MachineGames)
  • Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus (MachineGames)
 
Last edited:

Iron Eddie

Banned
Nov 25, 2019
9,812
That's a really weird response to what was being talked about because it's not really related, but people pretty much do this already.
What was being talked about was what would the concern be like on the forums if Sony bought Bethesda. Obviously the answer would be less concerns.

My point is Microsoft needs to do something to balance those scales so to speak but with that comes all the BS like Microsoft is just buying their way as though they would be happily to just remain with Playtation only forvever. Well that's fine and that should be based solely on first party then with little care about who gobbles up third party developers. Microsoft just expanded their first party portfolio and some seem to be struggling with the way they got there. Microsoft didn't go out and buy Polyphony Digital, they bought what was originally a PC centric publisher.
 
Oct 28, 2017
6,119
What was being talked about was what would the concern be like on the forums if Sony bought Bethesda. Obviously the answer would be less concerns.

My point is Microsoft needs to do something to balance those scales so to speak but with that comes all the BS like Microsoft is just buying their way as though they would be happily to just remain with Playtation only forvever. Well that's fine and that should be based solely on first party then with little care about who gobbles up third party developers. Microsoft just expanded their first party portfolio and some seem to be struggling with the way they got there. Microsoft didn't go out and buy Polyphony Digital, they bought what was originally a PC centric publisher.

What?
 

UltraMagnus

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
15,670
MS knows now that they have Bethesda they don't have to court these other solutions so much. What they had with Nintendo was nothing more than a little flirting one night out a bar, it was never a serious relationship.

They will shift now knowing they have the tools to make Game Pass + XBox work on its own and probably prioritize more developer purchases if anything to strengthen that even more.

This whole thing was about Phil getting buy-in from the board of directors to have his hands untied and be able to spend.

If he couldn't do that then having a more harmonious relationship with Nintendo probably made some sense, but now that things have changed, think the XBox division is laser focused on looking after their own interests now.

They have a real shot of at least beating the PS5 in North America and make inroads in Europe and I think they know that. They don't need Game Pass on the Switch right now and it's probably a non-starter for Nintendo at the moment anyway.
 

ThatNerdGUI

Prophet of Truth
Member
Mar 19, 2020
4,550
No, what's next is that Sony is being forced to put their $30+ billion cash reserves to use and make some big acquisitions themselves as a defensive move. And then we very quickly have a market where you suddenly can just play ~70% of all games on a single console, instead of 95% before. Which means, if you want a similar experience like in the past, you will have to shell out another 500 bucks for a PS5. But hey, at least you got some great savings with Game Pass, right?

Just because they have those reserves doesn't mean they have that money to spend. Typically companies would like to have cash reserves that covers 3-6 months of their expenses. The last Sony quarter expenses where ~$16B, so basically they can barely cover expenses for 6 months. Now the probability that they will spend the remaining $15B on a publisher for a "defensive move" (whatever that is) are incredibly small. If anything we could see more smaller studios similar to the Insomniac purchase, and even then people shouldn't be holding their breath.
 

SavoyPrime

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,180
North Carolina USA
Nobody should be surprised by the response. Though I will say that I don't know how MS is going to make the investment in Bethesda payoff just keeping the games on Xbox. For me, personally, them purchasing Bethesda still isn't enough to make me want a Xbox or GamePass. I've never been impressed with Elder Scrolls or Fallout. And Arkane is the only studio under their umbrella I care about. Good thing is, I can play their games on PC. So for me, it's no big deal. But I do see why many are disappointed.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,800
I mean... yes, of course. I already recognize several usernames in here who were ambivalent or "it's just business" at best, to downright giddy and "they are delivering value for their customers!" at worst, in previous conversations about Sony reportedly trying to moneyhat exclusivity for everything on the planet, or potentially buying Konami IP, etc. Hell, if you believe the reporting, Sony were apparently angling to tie up exclusivity for Starfield and Elder Scrolls 6, in addition to Deathloop and Ghostwire already, which would basically make Bethesda's major output exclusive to the PS5 for several years, outside of id, lol. People are opportunistic and hypocritical, news at 11.

That doesn't really reflect on the good faith conversation to be had around industry consolidation, or the reality that Sony or Microsoft buying studios/publishers inevitably curtails choice to some degree. Getting mired in who is the bigger hypocrite is an irrelevant sidebar.

I don't really agree. As a frequent participant in discussions on exclusivity I feel that the true intent of other participants does indeed reflect on the good faith conversation around industry consolidation and customer choice. In particular I believe that it severely compromises the "good faith" part of the conversation. What kind of good-faith discussion can be had with some posters decrying industry consolidation and the curtailing of customer choice when there is a proven record of the same posters celebrating past acquisitions and being distraught when a former exclusive is announced for PC?
 

Scottoest

Member
Feb 4, 2020
11,328
In particular I believe that it severely compromises the "good faith" part of the conversation. What kind of good-faith discussion can be had with some posters decrying industry consolidation and the curtailing of customer choice when there is a proven record of the same posters celebrating past acquisitions and being distraught when a former exclusive is announced for PC?

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I don't mean a good faith conversation is there to be had WITH the hypocrites - I mean that the existence of hypocrites doesn't reflect on the fact that there is a valid, good faith conversation to be had at all. There definitely is.

For a simple analogy, the fact that Al Gore might ride around in a private jet doesn't disprove climate change. It just means Al Gore might be a hypocrite.
 

gogosox82

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,385
He's just saying what he's always said no? The game doesn't have to be on other platforms in order to recoup costs. Doesn't say anything about whether Bethesda games are exclusive or not. That said, I do think that the end goal is working out some deal where game pass is on ps5. So its on ps5 but you have to use gamepass and have a sub to play Bethesda games.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,800
I think you misunderstood what I meant. I don't mean a good faith conversation is there to be had WITH the hypocrites - I mean that the existence of hypocrites doesn't reflect on the fact that there is a valid, good faith conversation to be had at all. There definitely is.

For a simple analogy, the fact that Al Gore might ride around in a private jet doesn't disprove climate change. It just means Al Gore might be a hypocrite.

Got it, I understand now, thank you for the explanation. On that topic I guess my first question would be, isn't the practice of securing exclusive content or limiting customer choice on console a systemic issue? As in, a core pillar of the industry? Can something that is ingrained to such a degree be uprooted when even core gamers cite exclusivity as by far the biggest factor in choosing a gaming platform?
 

gremlinz1982

Member
Aug 11, 2018
5,331
Microsoft has not been able to foster it's first party studios to the level of Nintendo and Sony. This will take them time with the new studios. To fast-track the situation and also because Game Pass has become a thing, attaining Bethesda was a good fit for what they needed/wanted to do.
Bungie only made Halo.

Turn 10 only made Forza Motorsport and then partnered with Playground to make Forza Horizon.

343 and The Coalition are solid developers that have a chance to now really push forward.

Rare is Rare.

It is a myth that Microsoft has not fostered their studios. This version, looks better than any version Microsoft has ever had in gaming.
 

christocolus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,932
Bungie only made Halo.

Turn 10 only made Forza Motorsport and then partnered with Playground to make Forza Horizon.

343 and The Coalition are solid developers that have a chance to now really push forward.

Rare is Rare.

It is a myth that Microsoft has not fostered their studios. This version, looks better than any version Microsoft has ever had in gaming.
agreed.
 

gremlinz1982

Member
Aug 11, 2018
5,331
No, what's next is that Sony is being forced to put their $30+ billion cash reserves to use and make some big acquisitions themselves as a defensive move. And then we very quickly have a market where you suddenly can just play ~70% of all games on a single console, instead of 95% before. Which means, if you want a similar experience like in the past, you will have to shell out another 500 bucks for a PS5. But hey, at least you got some great savings with Game Pass, right?
If I want to play Street Fighter V on console, PlayStation is the only place to accomplish that.

If I have been a fan of SpiderMan, the only place to experience it is on Playstation 4/5.

If I grew up playing Final Fantasy games on Nintendo platforms, I would need to get with the program. If I was used to getting it day and date on the 360......

This is what gaming has always been about and it is strange reading opinions on how it is wrong. How people need to access the same amount of content they were used to getting on the machine they are used to getting it on.

How are new players to break in? How are smaller players to compete by doing the same shit they used to do?

This utopian world some prescribe does not exist. Funny enough is that some of us got into Xbox because Microsoft secured Dead or Alive 3 and then went on to discover new experiences.
 

Armaros

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,901
If I want to play Street Fighter V on console, PlayStation is the only place to accomplish that.

If I have been a fan of SpiderMan, the only place to experience it is on Playstation 4/5.

If I grew up playing Final Fantasy games on Nintendo platforms, I would need to get with the program. If I was used to getting it day and date on the 360......

This is what gaming has always been about and it is strange reading opinions on how it is wrong. How people need to access the same amount of content they were used to getting on the machine they are used to getting it on.

How are new players to break in? How are smaller players to compete by doing the same shit they used to do?

This utopian world some prescribe does not exist. Funny enough is that some of us got into Xbox because Microsoft secured Dead or Alive 3 and then went on to discover new experiences.

It's just folks shocked they might miss out on games after an entire generation of them getting most the games they wanted on one console
which is funny when you consider the rhetoric before this sale about Sony exclusives from the same folks'
'It's just how the business works, so live with it'
They just didn't expect anyone to do it to them.
 

Malcolm9

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,040
UK
Nobody should be surprised by the response. Though I will say that I don't know how MS is going to make the investment in Bethesda payoff just keeping the games on Xbox. For me, personally, them purchasing Bethesda still isn't enough to make me want a Xbox or GamePass. I've never been impressed with Elder Scrolls or Fallout. And Arkane is the only studio under their umbrella I care about. Good thing is, I can play their games on PC. So for me, it's no big deal. But I do see why many are disappointed.

Pretty much my thoughts as well, and MS making this move won't make me purchase an S/X. I just won't play Bethesda /Zenimax titles if they no longer come to other platforms.
 

CommodoreKong

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,695
a bit off topic but I expect Valve to be grabbed by MS for their more "PC centric" push and that it helps MS get a foot in the VR space as well.

the MS Gaben left and disliked for years is not the same now. MS has embraced open source technologies and they have a much more hands off approach than before in terms of changing the culture of the devs they acquire.

And if I'm not mistaken, Valve is a private company worth around 3-4 Billion so it is an easy swallow from that perspective.
But yeah, Valve is in no need to be sold and Gabe is anyways a billionaire so yeah, a no is a no regardless how much money you have..

but I'm more positive that this will happen than not, I give it a 70% chance that it happens within 2 years 😎
Valve operates in such a strange way compared to most companies I'm not sure how well they would fit in with any public company. I doubt Gabe is the only shareholder at Valve ( at the very least I imagine some of the OG employees own a stake in the company) but it's going to be interesting to see what they do when Gabe retires. I know Gabe has at least one son who's working in the game industry but is doing his own thing outside of Valve. Maybe Gabe's shares will just pass down to his family. Maybe he will sell. Maybe he'll just "work" at Valve until the day he dies and let other people run things.
 

Deleted member 20297

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
6,943
It's just folks shocked they might miss out on games after an entire generation of them getting most the games they wanted on one console
which is funny when you consider the rhetoric before this sale about Sony exclusives from the same folks'
'It's just how the business works, so live with it'
They just didn't expect anyone to do it to them.
I think there is some truth to that. Playstation customers never really missed out on something, others did. I feel this led to some entitlement to access all games as a default. Sometimes exclusivity was even argued as "it would not sell much on the other platform anyway" while these deals were effectively the reason some games didn't sell well on the other platform. Sony, of course, only ever cared for their own customers and they did that in a rather ruthless way since they entered the console business. Again, it didn't bother people much because the majority was not effected as Sony was the market leader.
 

Abominuz

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,550
Netherlands
I am just confused how shareholders/microsoft will think like lets just let a couples of million in sales go by not letting it on the switch and PS4/PS5. I get what they are going for, but it is a big risk. The games could also not sell wel or just suck. I dont know the latest numbers, but Skyrim Sales where like 86% on consoles the first two years. The first edition sold like 4 million on PS4, that would be a lot more by now. And the same goes for the switch.
 

Brrandon

Member
Dec 13, 2019
3,071
I am just confused how shareholders/microsoft will think like lets just let a couples of million in sales go by not letting it on the switch and PS4/PS5. I get what they are going for, but it is a big risk. The games could also not sell wel or just suck. I dont know the latest numbers, but Skyrim Sales where like 86% on consoles the first two years. The first edition sold like 4 million on PS4, that would be a lot more by now. And the same goes for the switch.
If the shareholders were fine with the previous 9 acquisitions/ new studios being exclusive theyll be fine with the 8 new ones being exclusive
 

supercommodore

Prophet of Truth
Member
Apr 13, 2020
4,190
UK
I am just confused how shareholders/microsoft will think like lets just let a couples of million in sales go by not letting it on the switch and PS4/PS5. I get what they are going for, but it is a big risk. The games could also not sell wel or just suck. I dont know the latest numbers, but Skyrim Sales where like 86% on consoles the first two years. The first edition sold like 4 million on PS4, that would be a lot more by now. And the same goes for the switch.

But for MS as a whole the risk isn't very big and the upside is huge. Shareholders will accept short term loss/investment for long term gain. Also, the amount of influence the Xbox division has on MS share prices at the moment is minimal.

As a gamer that eventually gets all the consoles the most annoying thing so far is how so many discussions now are just acquisition wish lists and hoping MS/Sony hoard up the remaining big publishers. Let's hope this deal is the exception rather than the new normal.
 

gremlinz1982

Member
Aug 11, 2018
5,331
It's just folks shocked they might miss out on games after an entire generation of them getting most the games they wanted on one console
which is funny when you consider the rhetoric before this sale about Sony exclusives from the same folks'
'It's just how the business works, so live with it'
They just didn't expect anyone to do it to them.
It really is how business works. I have personally never been against mergers and acquisition or timed exclusivity. I have never been against securing exclusive content because this is how the industry was set up.

As someone has said above, PlayStation as a console platform has got a lot of games by default to the point that PlayStation only gamers feel that they are entitled to games. The reality however, is that no ones owes you anything. As a consumer, you are offered choice and you get to vote with your wallet.
 

Scottoest

Member
Feb 4, 2020
11,328
I am just confused how shareholders/microsoft will think like lets just let a couples of million in sales go by not letting it on the switch and PS4/PS5. I get what they are going for, but it is a big risk. The games could also not sell wel or just suck. I dont know the latest numbers, but Skyrim Sales where like 86% on consoles the first two years. The first edition sold like 4 million on PS4, that would be a lot more by now. And the same goes for the switch.

Think of how many millions in sales Sony are giving up not putting their big games on Xbox. First-party games have objectives beyond simply selling well.

The shareholders don't care, so long as there's a well-articulated plan for what they are doing - and in Microsoft's case, it's a long-game plan. They are willing to "give up" some game sales, the same way they are willing to bleed money on Game Pass early on. Nadella has made Microsoft shareholders a lot of money in the last 5 years, and the board clearly believes in what Spencer is building.
 

Deleted member 2840

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,400
a bit off topic but I expect Valve to be grabbed by MS for their more "PC centric" push and that it helps MS get a foot in the VR space as well.

the MS Gaben left and disliked for years is not the same now. MS has embraced open source technologies and they have a much more hands off approach than before in terms of changing the culture of the devs they acquire.

And if I'm not mistaken, Valve is a private company worth around 3-4 Billion so it is an easy swallow from that perspective.
But yeah, Valve is in no need to be sold and Gabe is anyways a billionaire so yeah, a no is a no regardless how much money you have..

but I'm more positive that this will happen than not, I give it a 70% chance that it happens within 2 years 😎
3-4 billion? Mate what
 

Grug

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,644
Happy with this as as someone who is going PC/PS5/Switch.

It might feel "anti-consumer" for some but I like the competition. Sony needed a fire under them after dominating this gen.
 

oRuin

Member
Oct 25, 2017
718
As a future PS5 owner. There is a slim chance we will get the next Elder Scrolls right? Even if it's a tiny chance.
 
Oct 29, 2017
810
Good looking 3 years into the future man for the scenario I presented! That's when investors may become vocal... Any other buys you want to suggest for me with this talent? Oh that's right you just lookrd at recent prices....

Being onboard now is one thing, staying on board is another. Especially if an investor thinks you can get better returns in other divisions or altering paths if the current plan isn't working out down the road.

Based on nobody knowing what the future will hold
Putting gamepass on ps5 makes xbox consoles irrelevant

This have to sell boxes line of thinking feels really opposite of MS plans so far.They care way more about getting a lot of gamepass subs than boxes sold.
 

Laver

Banned
Mar 30, 2018
2,654
Nobody should be surprised by the response. Though I will say that I don't know how MS is going to make the investment in Bethesda payoff just keeping the games on Xbox. For me, personally, them purchasing Bethesda still isn't enough to make me want a Xbox or GamePass. I've never been impressed with Elder Scrolls or Fallout. And Arkane is the only studio under their umbrella I care about. Good thing is, I can play their games on PC. So for me, it's no big deal. But I do see why many are disappointed.
Well let's say if Game Pass Ultimate reaches 50M subscribers at some point, that's $9B in revenue every single year. Some (most?) Game Pass subscribers will spend extra money within the Xbox ecosystem (games, DLC, MTX), so that's additional revenue.

3-4 billion? Mate what
Yeah, even ignoring Steam, Dota 2 and CS GO have half a million players at any given point. Valve's way more valuable than Zenimax was.
 

Secretofmateria

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,424
I think if it were sony who bough bethesda we wouldnt even be discussing the games coming to xbox. We dont know what the future holds, but i think its fair to say expect fallout and elder scrolls on xbox and pc, plus whatever else gamepass is on. I wouldnt hold my breath for a ps5 version, unless its through gamepass some how
 

Liliana

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
3,375
NYC
Pretty much my thoughts as well, and MS making this move won't make me purchase an S/X. I just won't play Bethesda /Zenimax titles if they no longer come to other platforms.

I feel like I can say with absolute certainty that Microsoft doesn't care if devout Playstation fans don't play Bethesda games, because in actuality for every one of those there are thousands of regular Playstation fans that will care, and will play these games on some form of the Xbox ecosystem.

And the goal isn't to make you purchase XSX|S when they're telling you that you can play these on PC and mobile via xCloud. This is one thing I don't think people here understand when talking about hardware sales.

I am just confused how shareholders/microsoft will think like lets just let a couples of million in sales go by not letting it on the switch and PS4/PS5. I get what they are going for, but it is a big risk. The games could also not sell wel or just suck. I dont know the latest numbers, but Skyrim Sales where like 86% on consoles the first two years. The first edition sold like 4 million on PS4, that would be a lot more by now. And the same goes for the switch.

Shareholders and investors seem incredibly pleased with their direction as the acquisition made their stock jump a pretty hefty jump. And with what their CEO is saying (which is unprecedented because their CEO never commented about Xbox like this before leading to "concern" about the state of Xbox in Microsofts eyes), plus what Phil just said, I just don't understand where the confusion lies.

PS5 sales for Bethesda games will be chump change to Microsoft compared to their vision for the Xbox ecosystem, and XGP is already soaring even before EA Play or Bethesda acquisition was announced. Again, that % cut that Microsoft will receive from potential PS5 sales will be peanuts. They're known to be a long term company and don't need to jump for very short term profits. Look how long they've been harping about cloud and all the memes it generated when now everybody is focused on cloud and the prediction of Google/Amazon entering the game via cloud actually came true.

And I mean, are we really going to talk about "what if these games dont sell well?" Not only does that seem unlikely, but XGP proves that devs don't have to worry about sales to be successful. TES6 will sell insanely well, regardless. And "what if these games just suck," seems incredibly farfetched when you look at their pedigree. You also have to realize that Microsoft knows alot more about the state of these games development as well as unannounced games. They didn't just make a blind acquisition. Just like Sony was trying to moneyhat Starfield potentially two years away; they've seen things behind the scenes we haven't, and were obviously impressed.
 

Necron

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,281
Switzerland
I would bet a good amount of money that unless you have a prior obligation, contract, or ongoing service with a Sony(or Nintendo) console, you will not be getting the vast majority of future titles, and pretty much zero of the AAA titles. Fallout 5, ES6, Starfield, Doom reboot 3, Dishonored 3, etc.

Without breaking PR speak, that's what Phil is saying here.
Indeed. The only other titles that may make it over now are things related to MMO (and even that's a big maybe at this point).
 

ShinUltramanJ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,949
There's no way Sony or Nintendo are going to allow Game Pass on their consoles.

They're going to want the lion's share of the subscription cut, and I don't see that happening. Game Pass also impacts their game sales, which in turn impacts their royalties.

It's not going to happen.
 

RPGam3r

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,463
I am just confused how shareholders/microsoft will think like lets just let a couples of million in sales go by not letting it on the switch and PS4/PS5. I get what they are going for, but it is a big risk. The games could also not sell wel or just suck. I dont know the latest numbers, but Skyrim Sales where like 86% on consoles the first two years. The first edition sold like 4 million on PS4, that would be a lot more by now. And the same goes for the switch.

I think you (and others) are describing why MS and shareholders will be happy. You talk about the appeal of these games the number of people who want to play them. This is exactly why they want them in the Xbox ecosystems. People will follow if they are fans of Bethesda titles. The number gained in Xbox/GamePass far out weighs the group that stays away completely.
 

Marano

Member
Mar 30, 2018
4,893
Rio de Janeiro
I am just confused how shareholders/microsoft will think like lets just let a couples of million in sales go by not letting it on the switch and PS4/PS5. I get what they are going for, but it is a big risk. The games could also not sell wel or just suck. I dont know the latest numbers, but Skyrim Sales where like 86% on consoles the first two years. The first edition sold like 4 million on PS4, that would be a lot more by now. And the same goes for the switch.
Playstation and nintendo games would be sales juggernauts if they were everywhere, it is the same logic for MS.

First party games are made to push ecosystems, not sell millions everywhere, that is the shareholders thinking, do you understand now?
 

TheGhost

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,137
Long Island
Do you consider the consolidation of studios and publishers saving the industry? So if Sony, or Amazon, or Google or whatever now buys Square Enix, or Capcom, and then makes all their games exclusive to their platform, would you be equally supportive of that?

Is platform holders buying up Publishers and keeping previously multi-platform games exclusive what you want to see increasingly happen within the industry? Because what you're essentially supporting or championing, is a much worse version of timed exclusivity, or at least paid for exclusivity at a much greater volume and impact.
I don't understand this argument when the other side actively took games away from the other side due to being market leader. Let Sony have Capcom and square Enix, those games are played more by people in their audience and if people want to play them they can go buy a PlayStation.
I am just confused how shareholders/microsoft will think like lets just let a couples of million in sales go by not letting it on the switch and PS4/PS5. I get what they are going for, but it is a big risk. The games could also not sell wel or just suck. I dont know the latest numbers, but Skyrim Sales where like 86% on consoles the first two years. The first edition sold like 4 million on PS4, that would be a lot more by now. And the same goes for the switch.
well if they want to play they can buy into the Microsoft ecosystem which alot will do when push comes to shove. People aren't going to pass up on a opportunity to play. The Xbox One S will probably be $199 by then. It's the whole purpose of making this deal. To get people into the ecosystem.
 

TaterTots

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,963
Nobody should be surprised by the response. Though I will say that I don't know how MS is going to make the investment in Bethesda payoff just keeping the games on Xbox. For me, personally, them purchasing Bethesda still isn't enough to make me want a Xbox or GamePass. I've never been impressed with Elder Scrolls or Fallout. And Arkane is the only studio under their umbrella I care about. Good thing is, I can play their games on PC. So for me, it's no big deal. But I do see why many are disappointed.

It's pretty subjective. Lots of people do love Bethesda games and will go out and buy an Xbox console to play Elder Scrolls, Fallout, etc. I pre ordered a Series console because of it. I've seen others state the same and that's before we've even seen a new game. As you said, those games are still coming to PC as well. It also entices people to subscribe to GP, which is the big picture. It's hard for me to imagine the investment not paying off.
 

Iron Eddie

Banned
Nov 25, 2019
9,812
Do you consider the consolidation of studios and publishers saving the industry? So if Sony, or Amazon, or Google or whatever now buys Square Enix, or Capcom, and then makes all their games exclusive to their platform, would you be equally supportive of that?

Is platform holders buying up Publishers and keeping previously multi-platform games exclusive what you want to see increasingly happen within the industry? Because what you're essentially supporting or championing, is a much worse version of timed exclusivity, or at least paid for exclusivity at a much greater volume and impact.
If I want to play Street Fighter V on console, PlayStation is the only place to accomplish that.

If I have been a fan of SpiderMan, the only place to experience it is on Playstation 4/5.

If I grew up playing Final Fantasy games on Nintendo platforms, I would need to get with the program. If I was used to getting it day and date on the 360......

This is what gaming has always been about and it is strange reading opinions on how it is wrong. How people need to access the same amount of content they were used to getting on the machine they are used to getting it on.

How are new players to break in? How are smaller players to compete by doing the same shit they used to do?

This utopian world some prescribe does not exist. Funny enough is that some of us got into Xbox because Microsoft secured Dead or Alive 3 and then went on to discover new experiences.

This is what I've been trying to say. Why are some so set in their ways where they think they are entitled to multiplat titles that existed before? Street Fighter and Final Fantasy never started on Playstation, it only feels that way because sales are giving them that edge. We now live in an era where gamers feel like they don't need anything but a Playststion and as soon as Microsoft acquires a studio/IP they are used to getting the forums light up.
 

Firima

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,469
I think there is some truth to that. Playstation customers never really missed out on something, others did. I feel this led to some entitlement to access all games as a default. Sometimes exclusivity was even argued as "it would not sell much on the other platform anyway" while these deals were effectively the reason some games didn't sell well on the other platform. Sony, of course, only ever cared for their own customers and they did that in a rather ruthless way since they entered the console business. Again, it didn't bother people much because the majority was not effected as Sony was the market leader.

Every time I see this sentiment posted, I'm obligated to point out that's it's really the heart of the discussion here, even if people are loathe to admit it. People aren't mad about consolidation, they're mad about consolidation away from the PlayStation platform, because historically, if you were a PlayStation gamer, you were entitled to availability of a much higher percentage of new game releases than on any other platform, though I would've thought that the PS3 years disabused many of the notion that console supremacy lasts forever.

People don't like that their default has been compromised and now they can play fewer games because A) they're a fan of platforms more than games and thus refuse to switch or buy into a second ecosystem, or B) cannot budget for a second high-end console and now have to choose between two platforms with increasingly divergent libraries. B is certainly a factor for many, but on here, much of the commentary sounds unironically like A.
 
Last edited:

Bosch

Banned
May 15, 2019
3,680
User Threadbanned: Console war rhetoric across multiple posts
Every time I see this sentiment posted, I'm obligated to point out that's it's really the heart of the discussion here, even if outside are loathe to admit it. People aren't mad about consolidation, they're mad about consolidation away from the PlayStation platform, because historically, if you were a PlayStation gamer, you were entitled to availability of a much higher percentage of new game releases than on any other platform, though I would've thought that the PS3 years disabused many of the notion that console supremacy lasts forever.

People don't like that their default has been compromised and now they can play fewer games because A) they're a fan of platforms more than games and thus refuse to switch, or B) cannot budget for a second high-end console and now have to choose between two platforms with increasingly divergent libraries. B is certainly a factor for many, but on here, much of the commentary sounds like A.
Lol people who defend consolidation are console warriors. Bethesda games don't replace Sony exclusives. It is not the platform. It is about the games they make.

Let's check if Phil Spencer narrative will sustain if they sell 40 million consoles again.

Buying a publisher is totally different than buying a studio.

If Sony takes a publisher I want to see the same energy on this forum.
 

fiendcode

Member
Oct 26, 2017
24,910
There's no way Sony or Nintendo are going to allow Game Pass on their consoles.

They're going to want the lion's share of the subscription cut, and I don't see that happening. Game Pass also impacts their game sales, which in turn impacts their royalties.

It's not going to happen.
Does it matter much if Nintendo/Sony get their 30% from a game sale or a GamePass sub? They'd still get their 30% either way.

The other suggestion we've heard floated is a 1st party only GP sub on PlayStation and Nintendo. In which case we'd likely start seeing more native MS releases in those ecosystems, including Bethesda games. Getting Doom, Elder Scrolls and maybe even stuff like Halo and Forza could be good incentive for Nintendo and Sony to greenlight that.
 

Spirited

Prophet of Truth
Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,792
Sweden
It's pretty subjective. Lots of people do love Bethesda games and will go out and buy an Xbox console to play Elder Scrolls, Fallout, etc. I pre ordered a Series console because of it. I've seen others state the same and that's before we've even seen a new game. As you said, those games are still coming to PC as well. It also entices people to subscribe to GP, which is the big picture. It's hard for me to imagine the investment not paying off.
It was the thing that sealed the deal for me personally at least.
 

Jamesways

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,240
Minneapolis
I'm going ps5 but will totally buy an Xbox in 2025 when the next elder scrolls game comes out if it's exclusive.

or 2028 or whenever they hell they get around to it. I hope it doesn't skip 2 generations before release.
 

Deleted member 56752

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
May 15, 2019
8,699
Lol people who defend consolidation are console warriors. Bethesda games don't replace Sony exclusives. It is not the platform. It is about the games they make.

Let's check if Phil Spencer narrative will sustain if they sell 40 million consoles again.

Buying a publisher is totally different than buying a studio.

If Sony takes a publisher I want to see the same energy on this forum.
I think there's a legitimate argument that as long as we go deeper and deeper and people on this forum and elsewhere continue to seek these ever-improving experiences, consolidation is a necessity. I don't think it was feasible for Bethesda to grow as their own publisher. I think they realized they reached the end of their rope after Dishonored 2, Doom Eternal, The Evil Within 2, Wolfenstein 2 all failed to meet sales expectations.

As devs though, the game pass model is great because they can just make the game they want. So long as it helps game pass out, Microsoft doesn't care. They seem to be so hands off they don't even really care much about quality.