Welcome to the community? Glad to have you.
I agree with your post. No need to share your shine with the competition. Xbox has needed something like this for a good while now. They don’t need to squander it away.
2 Likes
Good point! And you’re not wrong.
And remember, Imran Khan, Matt and a few others said that Sony approached all the big publishers and that big deals are in place and that the scope is big. So it’s absolutely possible there are still deals with maybe EA (even if MS has EA Play soon), Ubi, THQ, Activision, SE etc, if they keep that up I hope MS responds accordingly by simply saying “No Bethesda games for you at all.”.
I don’t know about this. If Microsoft puts their games on PS5 without GP, they miss out on subs and console sales completely. They make only a percentage of the sale if, say, ES6 is put on PS5. Sony isn’t going to allow GP on their system. That ain’t gonna happen. Microsoft profits more by keeping their games locked into their ecosystem. If they wanted to be a force against challenges, this is how you do it. Not by giving your games to your competitors.
By the time Starfield and Elder Scrolls come out, people will be able to launch an app on their Smart TV (or phone, or PC) and stream the games in 4k. The barrier of entry will be the lowest its ever been.
I don’t think they need to use the resources porting the games over when someone could so easily sign up for Game Pass/xCloud.
1 Like
While I agree that the difference between $70 games and Game Pass should be enough to set the platforms apart, MS should also keep these bigger games within their ecosystem.
They already distribute to more places than any other platform holder ie Console, PC and Mobile via streaming. That’s more than enough to propagate growth in GP subs.
They should remain aggressive, particularly with Sony.
I’m expecting after they have released the timed exclusive stuff.
The unannounced games will become xbox/PC exclusive.
With them continuing to support ESO/Fallout 76 and that elder scrolls mobile/switch game on all platforms that support it.
Are there examples of “case by case basis” in the game industry, so that we can maybe kinda find out what Phil meant with this or could he really have meant anything with it? He could have said it will be all exclusive to Xbox and Game Pass, like Sony absolutely would have, but he didn’t.
1 Like
The latest example I can think of is Ori 2 releasing on Switch just the other day.
And as amazing as that game is, I think it’s seen as a “smaller” game, more like AA compared to a AAA Behemoth like The Elder Scrolls and Fallout or Starfield. Maybe they’ll bring some smaller games (if Bethesda has these) to PS5 and keep the heavy hitters to their platform.
We all know how much the media loves exclusives. Each time Sony announces a new exclusive it gets big headlines. How great for Xbox would it be when their E3 has happened and headlines with “Xbox/PC exclusive The Elder Scrolls VI footage shown with release date”, that would be great.
Also, what I just realized. With other platforms it’s perfectly possible that Phil Spencer meant Switch.
1 Like
Yeah, that was pretty much my thought when he stated “case by case basis”: smaller games might come to whatever console Nintendo has out.
Finish this game and give that to PlayStation. You’re welcome.
1 Like
You a cold ass mofo for that, hahaha.
1 Like
Yep. I mean Phil may have said they don’t see Sony as competitor, well, we all know they might not be their number one competition but they definitely are. They have shown plenty of goodwill to Nintendo, some smaller games that the Switch can handle…why not? I don’t even think they will require Nintendo to have Game Pass on there. Sony is a completely different story.
If Sony had SE don’t ever believe they would “share” Final Fantasy or Tomb Raider. Absolutely not. Neither should MS, especially the behemoth titles. Especially once Sony becomes even nastier than they’ve already proven to be and bet on it that they will get nastier.
Fact is that Microsoft IS in a position now that they can “demand” things and if Sony stays stubborn…I don’t think it’s a game they want to play with MS. I don’t think we as gamers want that either.
It would surprise me a bit because as I said in that thread I made, if ms put starfield + elderscrolls on PS5 why not put halo and fable?
Microsoft goal is to reach more of the 3billion gamers in the world.
And while having gamepass on playstation might seem like a good idea, it isn’t. Sony dont want an app on there device that takes sales away from 3rd party games and there own subscription service.
Also sony are actively working to keep games off the xbox platform in order to sell there platform, while Phil has said he thinks the games industry is big enough where multiple platforms can have great success, however there comes a point where sony + xbox are in direct competition with each other, putting xbox games that arnt some mmo type game does not help the xbox brand, yes they will make some money from selling games on Playstation but Exclusively is more valuable for the brand
2 Likes
Definitely is older paradigm thinking happening. That said, I don’t think we should be thinking about this as we would singular titles either. So an individual game, it can make sense to release on PS5 for the revenue there, as that gamer is not super likely in most cases to buy an Xbox just to play that one game (no games are really important enough for that kinda thing anymore imho). So for MS, in a single title scenario that customer is either giving them $$ while staying on PS5 or giving em nothing.
However, scaling this up to a ton of titles across many highly popular franchises, including ones popular on PSX, I think changes the calculus a bit. Leveraging the full catalogue suddenly makes these targeted PS5 owners ripe for getting an Xbox. Sure, they can still get $$ from them by selling each title individually to these PS5 gamers, but what pays out better for MS?..selling just the one off titles one by one or forcing those gamers into the Xbox ecosystem? I’d wager the latter is MUCH more lucrative and important for MS than mere software sales. If MS’s main concern was revenue from software sales, they wouldn’t be putting their tentpole games on GP, after all.
The MS store on PC was also not competing real great with Steam and the longer that dragged on as the status quo the more implausible it becomes for MS to peel Steam gamers away, as their libraries never reset. For consoles, we have a whole new start here. I also don’t know how Sony would respond to MS promoting Xbox on their platform.
If growing the ecosystem is the goal here, we should be thinking from the pov of how MS pulls those gamers into the Xbox fold and PS5 releases don’t do that. I also don’t think the argument about this fitting into MS’s ‘go where the gamers are’ makes a ton of sense since that has always been conditioned on what it does to help grow their ecosystem.
Yeah Sony literally can’t afford to do that. It’s something MS asked Sony about a while back iirc and to no one’s surprise Sony said no. I can’t fathom how anyone could imagine that to be a move Sony would ever genuinely entertain.
I’m not really fussed either way but since Microsoft want to get more people in their ecosystem, it would make sense to keep these games exclusive since Bethesda can move millions of consoles with just Elder Scrolls and Fallout alone
1 Like
Will Phil see it that way?
can we consolidate these threads please thanks
1 Like
I’m sure he’s thought about it but like I said I’m not fussed either way. Phil and Microsoft have this good guy image atm and releasing on PS5 will be more beneficial to that image and will still make the company a lot of money
Short term they would recoup some of their investment selling on the PS5 but that wouldn’t necessarily help their ecosystem long term. The potential is there for millions more hardware sales
There’s bound to have been discussions