-
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.
I'm going to be really surprised if that's the case. That would be awesome for gamers and a great move by Xbox.
It's not as obvious as you are making it out to be. The "first, best" comment is obviously talking about future releases and not just games already existing on those platforms. But we'll see. They need to be obtuse given the current aquisition timeline, but I'd like to believe they actually pull this off in a way that doesn't screw over existing fans on other platforms. That would be fantastic news for everyone. Now all we need is all those Sony buying timed-exclusives left and right comments not to materialize in any major form and we are golden.
It's 100% about the IPs yes, these series are huge and span decades with millions of fans. You can add Tango gameworks and Arkane games as more niche prestige games and even those are way memorable than any smaller indie title published by DoubleFine (even if I loved Tim schafer back in the days, his new ventures have disappointed me)
I wonder if Microsoft could buy the old lucas art IPs, so they can make some great point & click games with the gang (Bring in Ron Gilbert)
It's not going to draw people to game pass if they can just wait it out and get it on Playstation, so I'm not at all convinced they'll publish Bethesda games on competing platforms. Honestly with the way he was talking about not pulling games it reads more like they'll continue support for the MMOs.
This reads to me like existing games won't stop being supported, specifically because he's talking about "pulling" content. So more or less ESO and Fallout 76 will continue receiving updates on all platform, as well as other online games I may be forgetting. I don't think this has any bearing on future releases.
This question is extremely disingenuous in this scenario, as we are specifically discussing game series/developers who have had an entire history of massive multiplatform success.
Asking whether Bethesda will continue on as multiplatform has no equating to Sony/Nintendo going multiplatform with first-party games.
I don't think you can't really use that comparison. Nintendo and Sony games aren't on Xbox to begin with. So their success is totally built from their own ecosystems.
The success of most games under the Zenimax umbrella is due to them being multiplatform.
Clarification on exclusitivy.
He also said this earlier in the interview
Original Source - https://seekingalpha.com/article/43...interactive-entertainment-virtual?part=single
Original Source - https://seekingalpha.com/article/43...interactive-entertainment-virtual?part=single
Is he? Perhabs the new content for Fallout 76 and ESO will release first on Xbox and than his statement would be true. You know as I said he should stop talking, because they can't say much legally yet and the only thing CFO is doing is dancing around.
How would you win over Sony customers to your platform by putting your first party games on PlayStation day one. They specifically mention timed exclusives ("first"). There will definitely be games first on Xbox for x years.
I always hear this argument and it's completely backwards.
Firstly, MS payed for all of Bethesda's IP. That includes all of the technology they use to build their games. They also get unfettered access to Bethesdas talent. And they get to fold all of those assets into the XGS portfolio, which has potential benefits and value well beyond the existing franchises.
If all they wanted was Gamepass and timed exclusivity, they could have paid much less than $7.5 Billion.
I can't believe people think they'd pay that much just to keep a few games away from Sony and Nintendo when $7.5 Billion is roughly Sony's entire profit from PS4. It took the market leader 7 years to make $7.5 Billion in profit with an exclusives-only strategy. It makes no sense to assume MS is going to start the next gen in a $7.5 Billion hole and execute the same strategy. They'll never turn a profit. If they just wanted a few more exclusives, a money-hat would have served this purpose with much less cost.
As far as Halo goes, the value of that IP is baked into its existence as a console exclusive. Elder Scrolls, for example, is a much bigger franchise than Halo, and it being multi-platform is intrinsic to the value of the IP. Would the loss of core Xbox customers ecosystem be worth the increase in software sales if Halo landed on PlayStation? Probably not. Would the increase in core Xbox customers be worth the reduction of Elder Scroll's sales potential if it were limited to one console? Probably not. ES games can sell over 30million copies, while Halo 5 is somewhere between 6 and 8.
Last edited:
This should be in the OP. Seems in line with what they've been saying about ait being a "case by case basis".
Edit: Can you thread Mark Jesus's post, Uzupedro ?
Last edited:
Makes no sense for Microsoft to make besthesda games a timed exclusive. Timed exclusives just means I will wait until the game is released on my preferred platform before I play it. I'm waiting for the windows edition of ff7 remake instead of buying a Playstation. If there was a dragons dogma 2 exclusively for PS5, that would make me buy a PS5, otherwise I would just wait for the PC version.
What are you talking about? I agree on the first part and think the CFO should keep is mouth shut, because those vague statements don't help anyone and will lead to disappointment.
It's not a disingenuous question because it gives insight how these companies view the economics of these platforms. Phil has said he doesn't expect Nintendo type of deals in the future.
Again, I don't understand why we aren't getting the same questions regarding double fine IPs and Halo. It just feels like denial.
Key word there being "all" which makes me think that this is no different from the "case by case basis" and support for existing multiplatform service titles (ESO, Fallout 76, Doom Eternal).
Some games, likely those from existing PS-centric IPs (Wolfenstein, the two PS5 timed exclusives, Evil Within etc) are gonna be just timed exclusives, but I have a feeling that new IPs and existing Xbox centric IPs are gonna all be full console exclusives (Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6, Fallout, Doom)
The biggest thing though is the day one Gamepass inclusions though, which allows the service to grow. So being a total armchair management accountant, I could see them being willing to offset Gamepass losses by releasing Zenimax games multiplatform for at least the time being
Some games, likely those from existing PS-centric IPs (Wolfenstein, the two PS5 timed exclusives, Evil Within etc) are gonna be just timed exclusives, but I have a feeling that new IPs and existing Xbox centric IPs are gonna all be full console exclusives (Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6, Fallout, Doom)
The biggest thing though is the day one Gamepass inclusions though, which allows the service to grow. So being a total armchair management accountant, I could see them being willing to offset Gamepass losses by releasing Zenimax games multiplatform for at least the time being
I wouldn't get into this until the deal is finalized. I truly think new games won't come out on ps5 but current ones like FO76 and existing ones will stay. They will abide contracts like death loop coming to ps5 first and then Xbox later.
This thread really goes to show how different this interview gets interpreted. The CFO should stop. We have...
- Team: Fallout 76, Deathloop, ESO "not getting pulled". Starfield, TES6, ... all exclusive.
- Team: on case by case basis. Nothing changed to prior Interviews
- Team: everything will be time exclusive.
I feel like overall this is just the same "case-by-case" answer they've been giving for a while now?
Zenimax encompasses a pretty large amount of content, the safe assumption from what they've been saying themselves is that they likely have different strategies for each piece of content, based on a bunch of different factors. Doesn't seem worthwhile to read any of these statements and assume there's an all-or-nothing plan in mind for exclusivity.
Zenimax encompasses a pretty large amount of content, the safe assumption from what they've been saying themselves is that they likely have different strategies for each piece of content, based on a bunch of different factors. Doesn't seem worthwhile to read any of these statements and assume there's an all-or-nothing plan in mind for exclusivity.
Yep. Basically everything else... exclusive to MS's ecosystem.
When the sale actually closes and MS is out there actually announcing a new Bethesda game then we'll finally know.
Until then, ambiguous stuff like this is best left ignored in my opinion.
Until then, ambiguous stuff like this is best left ignored in my opinion.
I agree. It will be on a case by case basis as they've said. This interview here can be interpreted in different ways. You can't pull content that wasn't released to begin with. English isn't my mother tongue, but that's how I understand the word pulled.
This is how I read it initially, too.
People are setting themselves for disappointment here by willfully misreading the comment.
I don't believe it. Not for a second. I own a PS5, but I love Wolfenstein, Doom, and everything Arkane makes. They are going to make all the new games from those studios exclusive to the Xbox. Because of that, I will absolutely buy an Xbox when those games start coming out. I have a hard time believing they wouldn't make Bethesda games exclusive.
Hell, we may even get a good Fallout game again now that MS owns them. That would be another way to secure my purchase. Once again, I just can't believe they would abandon the obvious advantage that those exclusives would give them.
Hell, we may even get a good Fallout game again now that MS owns them. That would be another way to secure my purchase. Once again, I just can't believe they would abandon the obvious advantage that those exclusives would give them.
