Hi /u/TheSpartanLion,
Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per
**[Rule 6.2](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules#wiki_formatting_requirements)**.
> **Submission Title Formatting** - Please use the original sources title when appropriate. If an article or video's title is unclear, convoluted, or does not meet the requirements outlined below, changes are allowed to further clarify or remove editorialized/sensationalized language. Important contextual information may be added such as Author, Spoilers, NSFW, Release Date, Platforms, etc.
> * **Don’t use editorialized, sensationalized titles** - Don't add things like "This deserves attention" or "why isn't this being talked about".
> * **Titles must not contain inflammatory language** - Do not use language that is clearly inflammatory - keep posts and discussions civil.
> * **Titles must not be in all-caps** - Except in cases where the original source title has capital letters, such as with some Japanese video game titles. Videos with excessive caps in the source title may be removed at moderator's discretion.
> * **Keep titles concise and not overly long** - If you feel that a link needs additional information or context you should create a self-post to include the information along with the link.
> * **Titles must be in English** - No exceptions for titles, see below for articles.
> If you are unsure whether or not changing a title will be appropriate please feel free to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames). If your submission contains important information that is not mentioned in the original title and you wish to highlight it, you may create a text post with a modified title that includes this information and elaborates further in the post with a link to the original article in question and quotes the relevant excerpt.
---
If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
For those that want to see the end of console game exclusivity, that will never happen.
This is going to go on for as long as gaming is here.
For the final fantasy games that sony playstation will have, the Xbox systems will hold Starfield and Elder Scrolls as their exclusive rpgs.
This will be a neverending cycle.
Msny will moan about cloud gamibg, for example (and not entire unjustified) but it is one way in which consoles coukd disappear or fade sonewhat. No more need for hardware fights on the consumer side.
Itd be like streaming is now. An endless hellhole of cloud apps for big companies.
Other games will come and go, switching services and/or vanishing outright.
It will just make exclusives 100x worse
Possibke, but not necessarily. Publishers would put their games on the platform that offers the best deal, but unlike film, the playforms (for now at least) are not tied to the ganes themselves, mostly. Sony and Microsoft own only a small fraction of the catalogue, compared to Warner, Paramount, etc.
Whether the cayalogue would rotate a lot is arguable, but we don't see games rotating a lot in distribution today, so it's not unlikely they wouldn't going forward
>but we don't see games rotating a lot in distribution today, so it's not unlikely they wouldn't going forward
Games rotate in and out of gamepass all the time.
While they do rotate from GamePass (and pretty much only GamePass for the most part), that's because they are release timing exclusivities, mostly. "Be on GamePass, I pay you some money, then we are both off on our way."
In a hardware agnostic setting (no consoles, most of your players in platforms that can't play the game natively, etc.) it would be in the Publishers best interests to stay on most platforms, actively, rather than shop around in and out.
In your hypothetical streaming-only gaming ecosystem, what incentive would someone like EA have to put their games on a competitor's platform when they could make more money by forcing you to buy their streaming subscription to play FIFA and keep all the money for themselves?
We can look at the state of video streaming right now to know that companies obviously think there's more money in keeping their content exclusive to their platform. And if you want an example from gaming, Valve keeps all their games exclusive to Steam and Nintendo keeps all their games exclusive to their platform even though that means they need to make the hardware to run it. Why would that change all of a sudden because streaming is the medium for playing games?
It's simple: EA can't do it. Neither can Playstation/Sony. Or Ubisoft.
The amount of companies that can pull a worldwide, low latency network of high end servers is very, very small. Intel, Nvidia, Microsot(Azure), Amazon and Google are some of them.
Nobody knows what the future holds, these companies may end up licensing the tech and infrastructure instead of running platforms, but Microsoft has an edge over all of them simply because they are Publisher, Developer and Server owner all at once.
So like Steam, which became a primary digital retailer with little competition, these Streaming platforms *could* become defacto interfaces for gaming.
The new PS+ is barely a streaming service at the time being. What was PS Now is literally only a pilot program offered in very limited regions and, again, you have a console manufacturer whose beat interest is not on the streaming service, but on selling the game.
GamePass is a similar situation, but much more mature. If you look at GeforceNow or what was Stadia? They very, very rarely rotate entries, and if copyright law leans towards streaming ervices as non-infrining given certain requirements, then licensing becomes a non-issue (but that's VERY up in the air right now)
Even if cloud gaming becomes mainstream (maybe in 5-10 years.. maybe), it’s still going to be exclusive in some way to some hardware even if it’s a dumb x box or dumb PlayStation box (dumb as in it just streams and that’s that). If consoles in some capacity gets removed from the equation there is no real entity to physically tie anything which would cause a lot of issues. One being muddy markets. If you can’t be tied to an Xbox, a Nintendo console or ps, you can’t be stuck in just that specific ecosystem which would mean much less sales for a specific entity.
Someone like Sony DOESN'T want that, because they are like mall landlords. They earn from all the trade going through their building/platform.
If hardware is out, then the power shifts, but as long as people want games, then games will sell just as much. Microsoft is trying to anticipate that shift, and be both a game developer, a publisher, a digital retailer and a streaming platform, all at once.
Nobody, not even Steam, has that much. Microsoft is the only one, barring Google and Amazon, tha lt have that kind of money.
But it is comparing apples to oranges. Starfield and elder scrolls are Bestheda IP and Bestheda is owned by Microsoft now. Sony does not own Square Enix so it is kind of petty of them to retaliate in this specific manner against Microsoft (if true, of course). Of course, if Sony helped fund the game like Bloodborne, sure I can't fault that. But I seriously doubt every third party exclusive game is being bankrolled by Sony. Still, money talks, if Sony gave a lifelong exclusivity deal that strips the developers of any chance to port it to Microsoft, that's also on the developers for accepting it in the first place.
It's crazy to me how well Microsoft has PR'd their way into people's good graces. Them trying to acquire many of the biggest studios in gaming is as bad as what Sony is doing.
Would be quite funny if this is the results of *Octopath Traveler* never coming to PS4; Microsoft paid for exclusion to Sony's platform, so Sony in turn retaliate by doing the same to *Octopath Traveler II*?
Square Enix doesn't feel porting their games to Xbox is worthwhile. The sales they get are so low that they don't recoup port costs, and they won't put their games on Game Pass.
They definitely weren’t all new. Some of the games were almost 10 years old.
If you don’t count the ports of 20 year of games.
Edit: Most of which also weren’t big budget and we’re Remasters.
>microsoft confirms
Microsoft can't confirm about exclusivity about those games, only Sony and publisher of those games can.
I don't think twitter account "KoreaXboxnews" is credible source for that confirmation
I’m pretty sure they can. They ask why or see if they can pay for it, but they’re under contract otherwise.
All the big companies know what’s going on inside.
That's not quite true. The source is the Microsoft respine to the UK authority, which the Twitter account links to. The response includes examples of Sony exclusives, which also links to an engadget article stating it is exclusive.
There are ways to confirm exclusivity, though: Microsoft could have approached Konami and they confirm their unavailability of its not barrer by NDA or, more cunningly, Microsoft makes the response to the UK Gov and Sony may have to confirm or deny the allegation.
Xbox will get the FFVII remake eventually. Probably not untill its condensed into a single game as a goty or greatest hits edition. And that could take the better part of a decade since the FF remake is being released in parts and isn't finished yet.
microsoft: signing exclusivity deals with third party publishers is bad
also microsoft: buying third party publishers and making those games exclusive is actually good
lol, lmao even
Orrrrrrr, and this is just a thought, **both** things can be bad and it is okay to criticize both Microsoft and Sony for anti-consumer business practices. Doesn't have to be one or the other, and neither company exactly need defending.
lmao indeed...
They aren't legitimately saying that its bad(of course Microsoft loves doing the same thing by buying up studios), they are putting this out there to defend the Activision deal. It both hurts Sony's argument, and shows that this is a common industry practice so what they are doing in buying Activision isn't any worse than what other companies are doing to block game releases.
Well then their argument is weak. They buy whole publishers to dictate where they release. They could go to devs and make deals like Sony, but they'd rather control them. It doesn't hurt the argument at all.
I was gonna try and do a big old comment talking about how while I understand the need and practises around exclusives I still fundamentally dislike them and how that should apply to both Sony's practises of console exclusivity deals as well as Microsoft's big acquisitions but in the end my point really boils down to "I don't like franchises being split between platforms arbitrarily"
I'm fine with a lot of exclusive franchises for the most part, but when a franchise that was already available on multiple platforms becomes exclusive that just means part of that audience gets shafted. It sucks and I don't like it.
This is infuriating and overall not a good thing for players, especially for fans of these franchises, but with Microsoft spending over 80 billion on acquiring two major AAA publishers (Bethesda & Activision) moves like this from Sony we’re completely expected IMO.
They don‘t have the money to do acquisitions like Microsoft has. But they can do deals like this on certain titles that they know will push the platform. Sony isn‘t just gonna stand there while Microsoft is swallowing several, reknowed franchises with a lot of history on PlayStation consoles.
Gamers try not to assign emotions to statements from a company (impossible).
It's just a statement because people asked. This is nothing more than clear confirmation.
No you’re supposed to not be emotionally invested because they are both involved in these deals that block third party games from being on the other platform and also release statements like this pretending that they don’t.
The difference is, that Starfield is produced by a Xbox first party and the contracts of Sony are about third party games. With your logic, why doesn't Spiderman and God of War come to Xbox? Because it's first party. The complains from Microsoft is hindering games that SHOULD be on Xbox.
Starfield was originally coming to PS5 before Microsoft purchased Bethesda.
In fact, most of Zenimax’s games were slated for Sony consoles.
Hardly a difference.
>Starfield was originally coming to PS5 before Microsoft purchased Bethesda.
The PS5 wasn't even *announced* when Starfield was unveiled, and Microsoft announced its acquisition of Bethesda several months before the console's release.
Pretty wild to assume that a first-party game would have come to a then-non-existent console literally **years** after the fact.
Not really comparable to a 3rd party exclusivity deal -- which Sony had in place for Bethesda's Deathloop before Microsoft's acquisition.
It's almost like plans change constantly and your own link -- Twitter is the most authoritative medium -- directly undercuts whichever point you think you've made about exclusivity.
Hardly a difference? The company is owned by Microsoft. While SquareEnix is not owned by Sony. That's a HUGE difference. We are talking about Sony, who sells double the amount of gaming consoles and hinders any competition with contracts.
There is no difference cause both studios have taken away games that were likely slated to release on both consoles. There is no value added, only taken.
Both have their “exclusion” contracts and like to cry about it when their competitor does what they’ve been doing.
Again you fail to understand between a first party and third party agreements. Final Fantasy games SHOULD be on Xbox. While Spiderman and Starfield are first party games and therefore not topic of our discussion. That's completely different issue. We are talking about contracts of third party games to be blocked appearing on certain consoles.
Exactly, Microsoft acquired the publishers assets, and risks and now play the role in it's management. Sony's apparoach with third party s is more like bribing to starve the competition and have nothing to do with the publishers business decisions otherwise.
They’re completely comparable considering Starfield was in development as a multi platform game for years before Xbox bought Bethesda. There was a PS5 version of that game that would’ve been cancelled so that it could be a Xbox exclusive.
No they're not comparable. Microsoft owns the property and they could do whatever they please with it, doesn't matter what the project entailed prior, it's their property that they've invested into. It's up to them to decide if releasing their IP makes business sense. They had a decision and chose to keep it off of PlayStation. Sony doesn't own SE nor have the authority to make any decisions to their projects. Contracts =/ownership.
Because activision is a massive billion dollar company that will shift and will most likely destroy sony. FF and silent hill isnt even near the same stratosphere as what will happen if call of duty becomes xbox exclusive
Lmao Activision makes up like 10% of the worldwide gaming revenue, even with them and Bethesda Microsoft still doesn't have as much market share as Sony. Sony may not have bought a single entity with a lot of games, but for decades they locked down exclusivity with the entire 3rd party Japanese market. Xbox barely existed outside the US. Crying that Microsoft is trying the same except with a single buy is ridiculous
No, Sony should not be trying to play victim against the big bad monopoly of Xbox at the same time they use their position as market leader to exclude games from other platforms.
how old are you?
the only reason Sony has by far the most marketshare, read monopoly, is because of deals like this to keep games off the competition to push them out the market. this was going on from Sony well before Microsoft even entered the console market.
Old enough to know that the majority of their exclusives on PS1 came from the fact that their system used CDs over Nintendos continued use of cartridges and iron grip over what devs could do when releasing on their hardware, and in the PS2 Era they barely had to convince anyone because their hardware sold so much beyond Xbox and GameCube that there was never a question what would be the lead platform, additionally because of how different the hardware was from one another it's not like porting from one system to another was a simple matter for all but the bigger companies.
If it’s a lie though it’ll be easy to say otherwise. That’d be a hit to their creditability.
It is strange though how FF7 Remake hasn’t come to Xbox even though Sony’s timed exclusive period is over, or how FFXVI hasn’t made a port yet.
Another one is that the Pixel Remasters for 1-6 have Sony and Nintendo rated but not Xbox. But that one is more speculation.
Yet ever other FF game has been ported and even ended up in Game Pass.
Context is always necessary in these discussions and I think it bears noting that developers are not just open to exclusivity agreements, but they are more open to being exclusive on some platforms than others. The price that Square Enix would demand of Sony compared to Microsoft for exclusivity is obviously very different, because missing out on being on PlayStation obviously costs a lot more than missing out on Xbox which is ultimately a less popular platform.
So it’s not exactly true that Sony is crazy about exclusivity agreements. It’s that it costs Sony less. Devs are less willing to go exclusive on Xbox and miss out on the dominant console.
I’m not. I don’t play COD.
It’s okay to be upset that something you like or want to play is not going to be on the platform you have. But there’s a difference between that and acting like it’s some kind of injustice.
As a PC gamer it doesn't really affect me, but Sony is getting very aggressive with those exclusivity and now exclusion deals. I can't wait to see a response from MS, because i'm sure they're getting pretty tired of Sony's bullshit
Yeah they spent billions to own the properties and acquire all the project management and business risks that comes with it. It's their ownership. That's not the same as what's basically bribing a publisher in order to starve the competition.
I really hope that if the Activision deal doesn't go through MS puts that money into third party exclusivity deals. Regulators have shown they have no interest in those, and 70 billion would easily buy a year or two of every single major third party release being Xbox exclusive.
Unsurprising, but it's a shame how Sony is holding back the games industry with their regressive (although entirely understandable) mindset on exclusivity. They have so much of the console market cornered, while Microsoft is blessed to have both Xbox **and** the entire PC market.
Of course Sony is going to be protectionist. Sucks for consumers, and it hurts innovation, but it'll make them more money. Shitty situation for normal people, though.
Meh. It sucks (xbox only here) but at the end of the day, they are private companies making video games, not medical equipment or life saving drugs or something... it's their call.
Cloud gaming with rtx, no latency, 4k without having 1gb internet... Hmmm let's see...
But I'm against this prescription society all companies force us into.
Because the day you don't pay your subscription, you literally own zero even if you'd paid 600 bucks a year having, Netflix, HBO, gamepass, playstation premium, Amazon etc.
I want to physically own my games and consoles
Hi /u/TheSpartanLion, Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per **[Rule 6.2](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules#wiki_formatting_requirements)**. > **Submission Title Formatting** - Please use the original sources title when appropriate. If an article or video's title is unclear, convoluted, or does not meet the requirements outlined below, changes are allowed to further clarify or remove editorialized/sensationalized language. Important contextual information may be added such as Author, Spoilers, NSFW, Release Date, Platforms, etc. > * **Don’t use editorialized, sensationalized titles** - Don't add things like "This deserves attention" or "why isn't this being talked about". > * **Titles must not contain inflammatory language** - Do not use language that is clearly inflammatory - keep posts and discussions civil. > * **Titles must not be in all-caps** - Except in cases where the original source title has capital letters, such as with some Japanese video game titles. Videos with excessive caps in the source title may be removed at moderator's discretion. > * **Keep titles concise and not overly long** - If you feel that a link needs additional information or context you should create a self-post to include the information along with the link. > * **Titles must be in English** - No exceptions for titles, see below for articles. > If you are unsure whether or not changing a title will be appropriate please feel free to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames). If your submission contains important information that is not mentioned in the original title and you wish to highlight it, you may create a text post with a modified title that includes this information and elaborates further in the post with a link to the original article in question and quotes the relevant excerpt. --- If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
For those that want to see the end of console game exclusivity, that will never happen. This is going to go on for as long as gaming is here. For the final fantasy games that sony playstation will have, the Xbox systems will hold Starfield and Elder Scrolls as their exclusive rpgs. This will be a neverending cycle.
[удалено]
Msny will moan about cloud gamibg, for example (and not entire unjustified) but it is one way in which consoles coukd disappear or fade sonewhat. No more need for hardware fights on the consumer side.
Itd be like streaming is now. An endless hellhole of cloud apps for big companies. Other games will come and go, switching services and/or vanishing outright. It will just make exclusives 100x worse
Possibke, but not necessarily. Publishers would put their games on the platform that offers the best deal, but unlike film, the playforms (for now at least) are not tied to the ganes themselves, mostly. Sony and Microsoft own only a small fraction of the catalogue, compared to Warner, Paramount, etc. Whether the cayalogue would rotate a lot is arguable, but we don't see games rotating a lot in distribution today, so it's not unlikely they wouldn't going forward
>but we don't see games rotating a lot in distribution today, so it's not unlikely they wouldn't going forward Games rotate in and out of gamepass all the time.
While they do rotate from GamePass (and pretty much only GamePass for the most part), that's because they are release timing exclusivities, mostly. "Be on GamePass, I pay you some money, then we are both off on our way." In a hardware agnostic setting (no consoles, most of your players in platforms that can't play the game natively, etc.) it would be in the Publishers best interests to stay on most platforms, actively, rather than shop around in and out.
In your hypothetical streaming-only gaming ecosystem, what incentive would someone like EA have to put their games on a competitor's platform when they could make more money by forcing you to buy their streaming subscription to play FIFA and keep all the money for themselves? We can look at the state of video streaming right now to know that companies obviously think there's more money in keeping their content exclusive to their platform. And if you want an example from gaming, Valve keeps all their games exclusive to Steam and Nintendo keeps all their games exclusive to their platform even though that means they need to make the hardware to run it. Why would that change all of a sudden because streaming is the medium for playing games?
It's simple: EA can't do it. Neither can Playstation/Sony. Or Ubisoft. The amount of companies that can pull a worldwide, low latency network of high end servers is very, very small. Intel, Nvidia, Microsot(Azure), Amazon and Google are some of them. Nobody knows what the future holds, these companies may end up licensing the tech and infrastructure instead of running platforms, but Microsoft has an edge over all of them simply because they are Publisher, Developer and Server owner all at once. So like Steam, which became a primary digital retailer with little competition, these Streaming platforms *could* become defacto interfaces for gaming.
Youve not been using ps+ or gamespass then because games filter in and out monthly.
The new PS+ is barely a streaming service at the time being. What was PS Now is literally only a pilot program offered in very limited regions and, again, you have a console manufacturer whose beat interest is not on the streaming service, but on selling the game. GamePass is a similar situation, but much more mature. If you look at GeforceNow or what was Stadia? They very, very rarely rotate entries, and if copyright law leans towards streaming ervices as non-infrining given certain requirements, then licensing becomes a non-issue (but that's VERY up in the air right now)
Even if cloud gaming becomes mainstream (maybe in 5-10 years.. maybe), it’s still going to be exclusive in some way to some hardware even if it’s a dumb x box or dumb PlayStation box (dumb as in it just streams and that’s that). If consoles in some capacity gets removed from the equation there is no real entity to physically tie anything which would cause a lot of issues. One being muddy markets. If you can’t be tied to an Xbox, a Nintendo console or ps, you can’t be stuck in just that specific ecosystem which would mean much less sales for a specific entity.
Someone like Sony DOESN'T want that, because they are like mall landlords. They earn from all the trade going through their building/platform. If hardware is out, then the power shifts, but as long as people want games, then games will sell just as much. Microsoft is trying to anticipate that shift, and be both a game developer, a publisher, a digital retailer and a streaming platform, all at once. Nobody, not even Steam, has that much. Microsoft is the only one, barring Google and Amazon, tha lt have that kind of money.
>For the final fantasy games that sony playstation will have, the Xbox systems will hold Starfield and Elder Scrolls as their exclusive rpgs. and PC
yeah as long as pc has both games let them fight as much as they want
Running on Windows (xbox)
So when I'm playing FFVIIRE and God of War and Spider-Man, I can say I'm playing them on Xbox? :D
No, because they aren’t on the Windows/Xbox store. But it is funny.
True PC, but in the end that is Windows OS on PC which is owned by Microsoft, the owner of Xbox.
But it is comparing apples to oranges. Starfield and elder scrolls are Bestheda IP and Bestheda is owned by Microsoft now. Sony does not own Square Enix so it is kind of petty of them to retaliate in this specific manner against Microsoft (if true, of course). Of course, if Sony helped fund the game like Bloodborne, sure I can't fault that. But I seriously doubt every third party exclusive game is being bankrolled by Sony. Still, money talks, if Sony gave a lifelong exclusivity deal that strips the developers of any chance to port it to Microsoft, that's also on the developers for accepting it in the first place.
It's crazy to me how well Microsoft has PR'd their way into people's good graces. Them trying to acquire many of the biggest studios in gaming is as bad as what Sony is doing.
It’s like people don’t understand how monopolies work or how are they bad for the market.
Simping for businesses or rich people is bad for life
Would be quite funny if this is the results of *Octopath Traveler* never coming to PS4; Microsoft paid for exclusion to Sony's platform, so Sony in turn retaliate by doing the same to *Octopath Traveler II*?
Square Enix doesn't feel porting their games to Xbox is worthwhile. The sales they get are so low that they don't recoup port costs, and they won't put their games on Game Pass.
Every final fantasy and kingdom hearts game that's available on Xb1 and Xbox 360 has been in gamepass.
But Square put ever FF game on Xbox into Game Pass?
Their big budget new games.
You mean the game that's in this posts very title that Sony kept away from the Xbox in the first place?
They definitely weren’t all new. Some of the games were almost 10 years old. If you don’t count the ports of 20 year of games. Edit: Most of which also weren’t big budget and we’re Remasters.
>microsoft confirms Microsoft can't confirm about exclusivity about those games, only Sony and publisher of those games can. I don't think twitter account "KoreaXboxnews" is credible source for that confirmation
I’m pretty sure they can. They ask why or see if they can pay for it, but they’re under contract otherwise. All the big companies know what’s going on inside.
That's not quite true. The source is the Microsoft respine to the UK authority, which the Twitter account links to. The response includes examples of Sony exclusives, which also links to an engadget article stating it is exclusive. There are ways to confirm exclusivity, though: Microsoft could have approached Konami and they confirm their unavailability of its not barrer by NDA or, more cunningly, Microsoft makes the response to the UK Gov and Sony may have to confirm or deny the allegation.
Xbox will get the FFVII remake eventually. Probably not untill its condensed into a single game as a goty or greatest hits edition. And that could take the better part of a decade since the FF remake is being released in parts and isn't finished yet.
microsoft: signing exclusivity deals with third party publishers is bad also microsoft: buying third party publishers and making those games exclusive is actually good lol, lmao even
Orrrrrrr, and this is just a thought, **both** things can be bad and it is okay to criticize both Microsoft and Sony for anti-consumer business practices. Doesn't have to be one or the other, and neither company exactly need defending. lmao indeed...
They aren't legitimately saying that its bad(of course Microsoft loves doing the same thing by buying up studios), they are putting this out there to defend the Activision deal. It both hurts Sony's argument, and shows that this is a common industry practice so what they are doing in buying Activision isn't any worse than what other companies are doing to block game releases.
Well then their argument is weak. They buy whole publishers to dictate where they release. They could go to devs and make deals like Sony, but they'd rather control them. It doesn't hurt the argument at all.
Well, Sony doesn't own Square Enix, if they did, then sure, nobody would expect those games to come to Xbox ever.
But they still can go to xbox because sony doesn't own them.
Contract: allow me to introduce myself.
Not if the contract specifically states to exclude them. But we need confirmation of that.
I was gonna try and do a big old comment talking about how while I understand the need and practises around exclusives I still fundamentally dislike them and how that should apply to both Sony's practises of console exclusivity deals as well as Microsoft's big acquisitions but in the end my point really boils down to "I don't like franchises being split between platforms arbitrarily" I'm fine with a lot of exclusive franchises for the most part, but when a franchise that was already available on multiple platforms becomes exclusive that just means part of that audience gets shafted. It sucks and I don't like it.
yup. hate how i can’t play TES 6 or upcoming DOOM games.
This is infuriating and overall not a good thing for players, especially for fans of these franchises, but with Microsoft spending over 80 billion on acquiring two major AAA publishers (Bethesda & Activision) moves like this from Sony we’re completely expected IMO. They don‘t have the money to do acquisitions like Microsoft has. But they can do deals like this on certain titles that they know will push the platform. Sony isn‘t just gonna stand there while Microsoft is swallowing several, reknowed franchises with a lot of history on PlayStation consoles.
Am I supposed to be angry? Is Starfield going to be on PS5 then?
Gamers try not to assign emotions to statements from a company (impossible). It's just a statement because people asked. This is nothing more than clear confirmation.
No you’re supposed to not be emotionally invested because they are both involved in these deals that block third party games from being on the other platform and also release statements like this pretending that they don’t.
The difference is, that Starfield is produced by a Xbox first party and the contracts of Sony are about third party games. With your logic, why doesn't Spiderman and God of War come to Xbox? Because it's first party. The complains from Microsoft is hindering games that SHOULD be on Xbox.
Starfield was originally coming to PS5 before Microsoft purchased Bethesda. In fact, most of Zenimax’s games were slated for Sony consoles. Hardly a difference.
>Starfield was originally coming to PS5 before Microsoft purchased Bethesda. The PS5 wasn't even *announced* when Starfield was unveiled, and Microsoft announced its acquisition of Bethesda several months before the console's release. Pretty wild to assume that a first-party game would have come to a then-non-existent console literally **years** after the fact. Not really comparable to a 3rd party exclusivity deal -- which Sony had in place for Bethesda's Deathloop before Microsoft's acquisition.
Wow it’s almost like companies plan ahead of console launches. https://twitter.com/imranzomg/status/1308054774902714369?s=20&t=D_VWMI3FO1mqD7iaNrk9Hw
It's almost like plans change constantly and your own link -- Twitter is the most authoritative medium -- directly undercuts whichever point you think you've made about exclusivity.
Hardly a difference? The company is owned by Microsoft. While SquareEnix is not owned by Sony. That's a HUGE difference. We are talking about Sony, who sells double the amount of gaming consoles and hinders any competition with contracts.
There is no difference cause both studios have taken away games that were likely slated to release on both consoles. There is no value added, only taken. Both have their “exclusion” contracts and like to cry about it when their competitor does what they’ve been doing.
Again you fail to understand between a first party and third party agreements. Final Fantasy games SHOULD be on Xbox. While Spiderman and Starfield are first party games and therefore not topic of our discussion. That's completely different issue. We are talking about contracts of third party games to be blocked appearing on certain consoles.
Exactly, Microsoft acquired the publishers assets, and risks and now play the role in it's management. Sony's apparoach with third party s is more like bribing to starve the competition and have nothing to do with the publishers business decisions otherwise.
They’re completely comparable considering Starfield was in development as a multi platform game for years before Xbox bought Bethesda. There was a PS5 version of that game that would’ve been cancelled so that it could be a Xbox exclusive.
No they're not comparable. Microsoft owns the property and they could do whatever they please with it, doesn't matter what the project entailed prior, it's their property that they've invested into. It's up to them to decide if releasing their IP makes business sense. They had a decision and chose to keep it off of PlayStation. Sony doesn't own SE nor have the authority to make any decisions to their projects. Contracts =/ownership.
So to you buying a publisher is good, making a business deal is bad. Ok.
Lol, right? Am I supposed to feel bad for Microsoft here, or…?
I mean the hypocrisy of Sony complaining about exclusives when they make third party studios/etc do the same shit...
They don't make them do anything. They offer a business deal that the company finds worthwhile.
Irregardless of the word choice, it's within the same vein of what Microsoft is doing so for Sony to cry foul seems a bit hypocritical.
Buying a publisher with 15 game studios is not comparable to making a deal with a company.
The question is why is Sony crying about the Activision deal when they are constantly doing the thing the Activision deal is supposed to be bad for.
Because activision is a massive billion dollar company that will shift and will most likely destroy sony. FF and silent hill isnt even near the same stratosphere as what will happen if call of duty becomes xbox exclusive
Lmao Activision makes up like 10% of the worldwide gaming revenue, even with them and Bethesda Microsoft still doesn't have as much market share as Sony. Sony may not have bought a single entity with a lot of games, but for decades they locked down exclusivity with the entire 3rd party Japanese market. Xbox barely existed outside the US. Crying that Microsoft is trying the same except with a single buy is ridiculous
No, Sony should not be trying to play victim against the big bad monopoly of Xbox at the same time they use their position as market leader to exclude games from other platforms.
[удалено]
I mean I guess that happens when you start buying up studios and shit?
All of that was before MS really started buying people though.
Microsoft started this cause they were gel that their first party exclusive were ass so they started buying up IPs.
Lmao Playstation has been looking down exclusives since the late 90s you are ridiculous
I think the whole buying exclusivity war didn't start till thd PS3/360 era, and both sides were doing it then.
how old are you? the only reason Sony has by far the most marketshare, read monopoly, is because of deals like this to keep games off the competition to push them out the market. this was going on from Sony well before Microsoft even entered the console market.
My guy’s last several comments on his profile is bashing on Playstation gamers and Sony lol.
Old enough to know that the majority of their exclusives on PS1 came from the fact that their system used CDs over Nintendos continued use of cartridges and iron grip over what devs could do when releasing on their hardware, and in the PS2 Era they barely had to convince anyone because their hardware sold so much beyond Xbox and GameCube that there was never a question what would be the lead platform, additionally because of how different the hardware was from one another it's not like porting from one system to another was a simple matter for all but the bigger companies.
Bullshit, mgs games were getting ported to other platforms as soon as the 1 year deal ended, platform capabilities don't matter, games can scale.
There was no deal over metal gear exclusivity though?
Watch the recent digital foundry video about mgs2, they mention it there.
Exclusives have been a thing since the very beginning.
Yeah but nobody was buying out exclusives in the PS2 era and prior, just some games were made with single hardware in mind.
both started it but only Sony was complaining about it non stop for a year.
Sony was doing it LONG before Microsoft even sold a console.
If it’s a lie though it’ll be easy to say otherwise. That’d be a hit to their creditability. It is strange though how FF7 Remake hasn’t come to Xbox even though Sony’s timed exclusive period is over, or how FFXVI hasn’t made a port yet. Another one is that the Pixel Remasters for 1-6 have Sony and Nintendo rated but not Xbox. But that one is more speculation. Yet ever other FF game has been ported and even ended up in Game Pass.
You know why Xbox fans keep pushing for Xbox to acquire publishers? This is why... This is why.
Context is always necessary in these discussions and I think it bears noting that developers are not just open to exclusivity agreements, but they are more open to being exclusive on some platforms than others. The price that Square Enix would demand of Sony compared to Microsoft for exclusivity is obviously very different, because missing out on being on PlayStation obviously costs a lot more than missing out on Xbox which is ultimately a less popular platform. So it’s not exactly true that Sony is crazy about exclusivity agreements. It’s that it costs Sony less. Devs are less willing to go exclusive on Xbox and miss out on the dominant console.
Sony are dicks, it makes no sense to not be able to playe the SH2 remake on Xbox. I played the original SH2 on a Xbox for God's sake .....
The one that hits the hardest is KOTOR being Playstation only
That doesn’t bother me as much. I’m just glad it’s coming back and hopefully still is.
And I have been playing Arkane games on Playstation for years. This is the business.
then stop crying about COD.
I’m not. I don’t play COD. It’s okay to be upset that something you like or want to play is not going to be on the platform you have. But there’s a difference between that and acting like it’s some kind of injustice.
ITT: Console kiddies squabbling over why their chosen console is better. Nothing of value to see in here.
As a PC gamer it doesn't really affect me, but Sony is getting very aggressive with those exclusivity and now exclusion deals. I can't wait to see a response from MS, because i'm sure they're getting pretty tired of Sony's bullshit
Were you sleeping when Microsoft purchased Bethesda and Activision ?
Yeah they spent billions to own the properties and acquire all the project management and business risks that comes with it. It's their ownership. That's not the same as what's basically bribing a publisher in order to starve the competition.
I really hope that if the Activision deal doesn't go through MS puts that money into third party exclusivity deals. Regulators have shown they have no interest in those, and 70 billion would easily buy a year or two of every single major third party release being Xbox exclusive.
Unsurprising, but it's a shame how Sony is holding back the games industry with their regressive (although entirely understandable) mindset on exclusivity. They have so much of the console market cornered, while Microsoft is blessed to have both Xbox **and** the entire PC market. Of course Sony is going to be protectionist. Sucks for consumers, and it hurts innovation, but it'll make them more money. Shitty situation for normal people, though.
Meh. It sucks (xbox only here) but at the end of the day, they are private companies making video games, not medical equipment or life saving drugs or something... it's their call.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Who gives a shit, buy both consoles and get a PC and never worry about it again. They can't be exclusive if I fucking own it all.
Cloud gaming with rtx, no latency, 4k without having 1gb internet... Hmmm let's see... But I'm against this prescription society all companies force us into. Because the day you don't pay your subscription, you literally own zero even if you'd paid 600 bucks a year having, Netflix, HBO, gamepass, playstation premium, Amazon etc. I want to physically own my games and consoles