-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Sony was negotiating timed exclusivity for Starfield a couple months back
- Thread starter jbug617
- Start date
Nah, as a Sony fan, I hate how they are buying up timed exclusives. They were behaving like Microsoft was during the 360 era.
Either make the game completely exclusive by funding the development (like SF5) or just leave them be.
This consolidation of publishers is worrying. I wouldn't want Sony to buy Square or Capcom, we don't need monopolies.
Either make the game completely exclusive by funding the development (like SF5) or just leave them be.
This consolidation of publishers is worrying. I wouldn't want Sony to buy Square or Capcom, we don't need monopolies.
I thought for sure Sony was going to lock down Starfield, but after this news and Phil Spencer's message, I'm certain it will now be Microsoft exclusive.
From Phil's message:
TBH if gaming is a hobby you probably shouldn't stick to one platform
Not everyone is able to have multiple consoles or a capable PC at home due to several reasons. But I guess you both know that.
Last edited:
Yup.
I have 2 Switch games, no console because I don't want the Lite and prices are sky high for the normal one.
I have GPU, and hope my credit card comes in time for Series X pre orders.
Its expensive, but worth it IMO.
As a PlayStation fan, I somewhat feel the same.
These stupid vague and misleading "exclusivity" deals are completely pointless and add exactly zero value to these platforms. Now, I know that if I want to play Bethesda games, my options are clear. PC/XBOX for sure, or take a gamble with PlayStation. No guesswork, no reading between the lines.
We have gone through an entire generation where Sony has had a lot of timed DLC and timed exclusive games. It did not just start with the games you mentioned.
Finally, go through my post history. I have always said that these companies need to spend in ways that they see fit.......because this is what all businesses do. I have stated that Microsoft needed to spend money, but my preference would have been that they get more content to Game Pass as opposed to timed stuff.
I have never ever taken anything personally against Sony because they are a business looking out for their shareholders. Their moves simply meant that for people like me, playing titles on PS4 made sense at times. That is just the way some of these things work out. However, being someone that plays primarily on Xbox consoles, this is a phenomenal move once one considers the value that exists on Game Pass.
'Dickish'? Nonsense. Microsoft wants that consumer decision to be harder. They want to be part of the conversation once again and the least of their worries should be people that have no interest in getting their console, playing their games on PC, or simply not interested in Xcloud.
I remember this being a thing during the PS3/360 era but it seems like it's affected every other game these days and is just frustrating with the exclusivity agreements ranging so wildly. Completely agree with you.
I do hope that (I know Phil said they'll determine on a case by case basis) they keep major franchises like Fallout and Elder Scrolls etc. multiplatform and are clear about their intentions as it feels right to not shut out any platforms there. The fact that they'll be on Gamepass immediately gives me the impression that it's a pretty likely possibility that they'll be open to doing this.
While I'm not going to say this is a good thing by any measure, it is good to know that these games will be available on PC, most likely day and date with the console release. With Sony, you couldn't tell shit with their elusiveness. And even if you could, you'd likely be forced to buy a PS to play them. As shitty as this situation is, at least we know we'll have two platforms to chose from without any ambiguity.
Tbh if you dont have money, you should just have more money /s
I don't play their games but if this is the stance why all the threads crying about exclusive games all the time? Also Bethesda makes games across a multitude of genres and play styles. One doesn't need to like all their games.
It's a good thing you'll be able to play them on xCloud too then
I'm simply pointing out when people say
"it's only exclusive for a year "
is like hearing "it's ok you're only getting fucked over for a year " by someone who never gets fucked over.
I will buy neither, I consider myself lucky that I can play everything on a PC by the time next gen is here. The thing is that I don't like the hypocrisy shown today in these threads, but I guess big publishers going exclusive is okay as long as it benefits your personal situation.
Ah. Interesting. Makes sense. Though, I suppose we have different definitions for the word "locked", then.
Imran Khan: "Sony has locked timed exclusivity for some huge and widely known multiplatform games" News
think about games that involve outer space and/or gunswww.resetera.com
edit: to be clear, this was referring to starfield at the time
As for this situation vs Sony timed exclusivity, I have to point out that there is a huge qualitative difference between exclusivity by MS and exclusivity by Sony. First, I'm not convinced that this WILL BE a full exclusive for Xbox. I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't think it's guaranteed.
But consider this. What does an "Xbox Exclusive" mean in terms of availability? Well, Day 1, you'll be able to access it on Xbox. And on Win 10 for PCs. And most likely for Steam. And on Android through xCloud. And by the time Starfield is released, probably on iPhone, streaming through a browser, on smart TVs. ALL ON DAY ONE. And if you take the example of Cuphead and the Oris, eventually on Switch too. You can play the latest Xbox Exclusive and EVERY Xbox Exclusive for just $15 and no Xbox hardware.
What does a "PlayStation Exclusive" mean? I have to own a PlayStation and maybe it'll be on PC day 1.
They're different.
That money sort of laundered itself into MS hands anyway...hahaha.
Would consolidation of publishers not result in funding of development?
I would say Microsoft is hardly a monopoly with how vast the game industry is.
Makes you wonder if they have more that they haven't said, that they're trying to save for the next conference.
Their PR is often criticized but revealing this information the day before pre-orders is brilliant.
Last edited:
This makes it sound like Starfield will definitely be an Xbox and PC exclusive.
A large chunk of PlayStation buyers will pick those games up on PC or buy an xbox to play them.
Absolutely, I want to play on PC and MS guarantees that on day one.
people waited well over 1.5 decades for a final fantasy 7 remake, only for Sony to gate it behind their hardware for at least a year.
so yeah, that's how it works nowadays. At least xbox seems to be more pro-consumer with this shit since you can play their games on PC.
The brigade is singing a different tune now. Are you surprised? People should normally be against, as a MS with the weight of MS, once unleashed as it has been since it embraced the streaming/cloud mantra, is a threat to a competitive market. Not Nintendo, not Sony...Microsoft. You would think that people would not want them to start gobbling entire publishing entities up, if only to preserve a healthy competitive dynamic, but those people are still too enraged over Sony anti-consumers practices...of delaying their product by 6 months. Expect other publishers to follow suit...Sad prospect, really.
Guess that's the end of the convo for Sony then! Good.
I'm not a fan of timed anything but at least now it's a case of a studio belonging to MS/Sony, rather than multiplat timed nonsense.
LOL
I'm not a fan of timed anything but at least now it's a case of a studio belonging to MS/Sony, rather than multiplat timed nonsense.
LOL
Dunno why but this sounds like an innocent child going to the store to buy stuff with a bunch of candy instead of money.
What a weird thing to look back on considering today.
What a weird thing to look back on considering today.
My take is that the netflix model is the pro cosumer futute and MS is the one pushing it forward. They will not be the only option, but they look to be the first big one with at least a 5 year head start. MS is netflix; there will be a Disney and an HBOMax coming, though it will take real change and lots of players will get bought or left in the dust in the process (your CBS/NBCs if you will). One eventual player will probably be Sony, though right now they are actively trying to sit on their market leading status quo as long as possible. Moves like this force the industry as a whole to change faster, and so I am for it.
The biggest difference, is that by tying bloodborne to PS4 we cant play it on 60 FPS.
At leas with MS you have the option to play the games on a PC at a good framerate.
It's honestly the greatest slap in the face Microsoft could have given Sony. And they kinda of deserve it with all the moneyhats.