Why doesn't Microsoft stop support for "legacy titles" on non GamePass platforms?

image

Games such as Minecraft Dungeons, Fallout 76, ESO, Skyrim etc.

Why does Microsoft keep bringing DLC and updates to non GamePass platforms ? Obviously it’s a nice thing to do but I’m sure they could stop support to these if they wanted to.

I have no doubt in my mind if Sony bought Bethesda they would stop support for non PS platforms of these games.

It would also push many more console sales and GP subs if they did this.

Because the people who bought the game already are still customers to Xbox even on other platforms and it would be a really shitty thing to pull support to paying customers even on other platforms. Those people are already invested in the game and probably are spending money in those games and to ask them to move to an whole new platform which will probably not have cross platform saves is a bit much.

We don’t know that, those a service games and are different to say God Of War.

I don’t think it will, I think it would just piss people off and they’ll just stop playing these old games and move onto something else so when ESO 2 comes out for example they won’t buy it because they were burnt. Let’s be real here no one is going to change platforms if Fallout 76 support stops on that platform.

5 Likes

You’d be surprised. That game is quite popular now. I know many gamers who play FO76 on PS4 and are going to move to Series X/S due to the Bethesda acquisition. Ending support on PS would bring them over faster.

It’d be shit PR, a dick move and they don’t stand to gain a ton from it.

Like, let’s be real, nobody is gonna go “Oh shit, Quake, a game I can emulate easy as pie and Skyrim, a game I could buy until recently anywhere are only on Xbox, whelp, take my 300-500.”

However, if you keep the olive branch extended and make the sequels exclusive, you can win over far more. Hard to call it a dick move when MS owns the company and Sony would do far worse. Anecdotally, online I have seen many begrudginly buy an Xbox for Outer Worlds 2, Elder Scrolls 6, Doom, etc. just to fall in love with it.

11 Likes

Casuals aren’t going to emulate or play on PC, they will buy a new series x or s

For the OG Quake and Skyrim (a game many of them already own on other systems)?

Microsoft could have not sold the latest Skyrim edition on non GamePass ecosystem platforms. (The special edition with fishing)

this is why, do you see this ? this is pretty much MC here.

1 Like

And ?

Microsoft isn’t competing with these publishers.

They are competing for your time among the subscription services available.

I think there are two situations:

  1. Minecraft franchise

This is used by Microsoft to introduce youngsters into gaming. i.e. as a tool to grow the market. In the long-term, this will benefit both Xbox and competitors.

At some point I thought that they should give game pass benefits for minecraft users, in order to convince them to join the ecosystem. Nonetheless, I think it is confusing to offer a service that some customers cannot fully use (why am I paying for game pass ultimate if I cannot use it on my switch?). Improving brand perception among youngsters will be a much better strategy, even if you help competitors grow.

  1. Non-minecraft, legacy games

I believe they have two objectives: (1) do not lose Bethesda’s fanbase due to business decisions, (2) slowly transition Bethesda’s fanbase into the xbox ecosystem with new releases.

1 Like

they would be throwing too much money that way, yeah they could do that but the cost simply would be not worth it in long run, what you should expect MC would be exclusive on xcloud and not other service.

That’s fair, but idk. Skyrim is already available for sale on PS4 anyways so it didn’t seem like much of a stretch.

I’m largely of the opinion that within reason, legacy content makes sense to release on the platforms those games are playable on. And updates to existing GAAS helps maintain goodwill and honours the contract players make when they buy into a game.

However, I do think future titles, sequel or New IP should be exclusive and I think it’s worth mentioning for legacy as well, I’m not talking remakes. Upreses, ports, “AI remasters”, whatever are one thing. “We’re gonna rebuild this game from the ground up with modern technology, graphics and design sensibilities” is another. At that point, it’s a new game and should be exclusive.

3 Likes

I think it’s ok for existing games like ESO and F76, but I disagree for remasters, things like Quake remaster only muddle the waters. I hope there are no more legacy content drops in the future, they directly harm Xbox=Bethesda perception.

1 Like

That’s fair. I think with Quake there’s a chance that was contractual with LRG. And for Skyrim, that thing is available everywhere anyways pre-anniversary.

But still, I get what you’re saying.

I get the timings were near to acquisition, from this year it’s no longer true.

1 Like

Yeah, for sure.

I would assume because it’s still profitable to do so

I see it as pretty simple for everything that is not Minecraft:

  • Support allready released games until end of life. Nothing new should release outside of the Xbox ecosystem, that includes remasters etc.

For Minecraft:

  • Support the main game everywhere. Spin-offs like Dungeons to be released only within the Xbox ecosystem. Mojang should support Xbox better via Series X|S upgrades to make it the best place to play on consoles.

I find it incredibly weird to not utilize one of the biggest IP’s in the world to benefit your own platform over the competition. Think about how Sony would have used it, and do about half of that for a reasonable approach.

4 Likes

Pretty much this.

With news of the new Acquisition, this topic is now back for discussion again.

Surely Microsoft would not want to put a “legacy” call of duty already in development on Playstation now.

Imagine if MS stopped the dev of MW2 on Playstation as soon as the acquisition passes. GamePass subs would double overnight with all the gamers changing platforms.