By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ipumpmygun said:
Do you guys think Microsoft's gaming division is capable of pumping out high calibre titles like the good old days or no?

Let's hope all of these acquisitions were not all for nothing

Guaranteed that you will get some high calibre titles with 23 studios, even if you get a few duds or failed experiment the Game Pass model will still support all of these studios. I don't think any studios or developer really go out trying to make a bad game and simply a cash grab, you wouldn't stay in business very long that way. I still think Microsoft should acquire a few smaller indie studios that can make smaller games that can fill in between each major AAA releases. 

Don't forget that Microsoft not only has 1st party games in gamepass but there a tons of 3rd party and indie games that comes to the service. While, these titles might not be from Microsoft gaming division being part of Game Pass just add to the customer value of the service. 

With Bethesda now more than ever Microsoft will be a leader in FPS and Western RPG games. They will always have the trifecta of Halo-Gears-Forza. Just look at all the studios they recently acquire they really have a broad range of studios that can make something that will appeal to many different gamers. Beside, the longer you play on gamepass and take advantage of their service the cheaper it will be for you to play Sony's exclusives. 



Around the Network
Chazore said:

came across this from UE and I found this particular part amusing, due to the opposite reactions to this news: 6:43

LOL, a great video that captures the double standard in the gaming industry right now.

This entire thread has been negative reactions to the Microsoft acquisition, which is exactly what many people complain about Microsoft console lack of exclusives. It's funny to make fun of consoles you don't support until they go and take away access to games. Sony before this acquisition was the worst offender of buying exclusives for next gen but as the market leader they don't get much flack, it's simply considered bringing value to their customers.

I'm just happy if all the Bethesda games get added to Game Pass, if Sony console owners are able to pay a premium for the games that will simply bring value to the Xbox eco system. 



"Getting a cut from PS5 sales is peanuts compared to growing Game Pass by millions. Worst case the big titles will be timed exclusive. MS didn’t spend 7.5 billion to treat Bethesda like any other 3rd party dev."

Playstation sales are 2/3 of mainline console market, and probably 1/3 of Zeni's valuation, so worth ~$2.5-3B of cash they paid out.
They aren't going to get that many Playstation gamers to switch to Xbox, and it doesn't make sense to throw that much money away.
Just having it on Gamepass increases attraction of Xbox platform, and timed exclusivity or just marketing exclusivity is worthy enough.
You seem to concede this by gesture to timed exclusive, which wouldn't make sense if full exclusivity was clear money maker strategy.
There just isn't a reason to throw $2.5 billion away when that can buy other devs/publishers or otherwise invest in growing business.

PC side of things seems to be ignored here, but this also increases MS' weight there with own store now having superior product access.
Ultimately there can't be the same kind of exclusivity in PC space with each store just another app, but MS' Game Pass model clearly can
be extended to PC and achieve "consumer capture" just like Netflix etc. Which reinforces my view on Sony/Epic relation being key factor,
and consolidation being likely across console/PC space with subscriptions being core element, via acquisition/merger or joint ventures etc.

------------------

Anyways, I'm not unaware of general practice of platform owners using exclusivity to their advantage, but it just isn't accurate to call this "proportionate" to Sony's actions, a $7.5B deal is simply not proportionate to Sony's own efforts. BTW, the video gets weird where it says Sony bought exclusive rights to Spiderman... No, Sony owns a film studio who owns the underlying rights, which were purchased from original comic book company but not specifically for gaming exclusivity. Sony owns a bunch of other film and TV "IP" most of which isn't utilized for gaming at all. That a long video like that can't even mention Sony's relation with Epic (which is now just 5% investment into Epic) makes me question it's perspective. Sure, that doesn't look exactly like MS' direct acquisition, but it definitely seems relevant to larger gaming space, even if joint ventures or reverse buyout of Sony's gaming division is more likely considering Sony's own financial capabilities. The video narrator focuses too much on what MS could hypothetically do with all their money, but never substantiates why they would ever consider using all their financial resources to fund 3-4 more equivalent purchases... Never mind address the regulatory implications of doing that. Which reminds me of why I think Sony needs to shore up their EU presence and relationships in order to keep that major regulator on their side or critical of MS. Sony is vastly US/English focused and much of their EU presence was tied up in UK, which now isn't in the EU, so bulking up their own presence in the EU as well as solidifying partnerships with EU companies seems like good business politics.

Last edited by mutantsushi - on 22 September 2020

Lol. This is hilarious. Tbh, I am a bit disappointed as aside from Sony, Bethesda's gamea are the ones I buy most (i recenyly finished Wolfenstein 1&2, have Doom and Fallout started but not finished), primarily because they are mostly single-player. However, it is unlikely I will ever change consoles as my preference are still sony exclusives. 

Biases aside, I frankly think this is a good buy for MS as Bethesda are known for thei singleplayer games, an area that MS is co siderably weaker in compared to Sony so it fills an obvious weakness. I think this is a clear compliment to Sony too as it is clear that MS realises that they were facing an upward hill in terms of consoles sales vs the PS5, and decided that laying down a massive sum of money (one Sony could never match) was the way forward.


It will be interesting to see how this changes things. I assume that most casual gamers may not have heard of the purchase or realised what it means. Or some may be so used to the PS ecosystem they don't consider purchasing any other console Does this mean the PS5 will continue to go its merry way with higher sales or will the series X overtake it? i think Sony will back their exclusives as standing up to any competition and the PS5 will continue to dominate. But I can see the gap narrowing and the Gamepass becoming ever more attractive of a proposition.

One final point I want to make - MS has been on a purchasing spree in the last wee while, but we have yet to see any games released by these new studios and it is not yet possible to tell if MS has been doing a good job looking after these studios. Let's hope that MS resists the urge to tinker or add silly things like GAAS to these new IPs MS has just bought. 

Last edited by fauzman - on 22 September 2020

<a href="https://psnprofiles.com/fauzman"><img src="https://card.psnprofiles.com/2/fauzman.png" border="0"></a>

Even more reason Microsoft had to acquire Bethesda, I hope Microsoft at the very least slap a time exclusive on all future Zenimax games.  



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
hunter_alien said:

Who is perplexed, the GBA pretty much guaranteed that Nintendo will remain highly profitable as the only relevant handheld manufacturer on a global scale.

Also, I hate doing research for others, but just for the argument's sake here you go:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27373587

Quote: "The idea is that the firm was obsessed by the quality of the titles released for its platform, leading it to impose restrictions on how many games other third-party publishers could release each year and reserving the right to reject their work if it felt it didn't meet Nintendo's standards. Sega deliberately took the opposite tack, resulting in it being able to boast a larger games library, even if it had more duds."

Nintendo almost literary severed its relationship with 3rd parties during that gen, hiding behind the "quality" mantra, yet notable real stinkers prove that it was mostly a tool to keep devs firmly in their ecosystem.

There is also a decent book about it, detailing how :

The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World

Most of the relevant parts are on the SNES wikipedia page, under the Console wars and Changes section, so feel free to check them out.

This is also a topic that was widely covered by several online personalities including the AVGN and even Digital Foundry, so it's pretty hard to imagine that you never came upon this info.

You keep dodging and changing points.

The PS2 sold more than 100m units of hardware and more than 1b units of software from 2000-2006 while the GBA sold 80m units of hardware and ~350m units of software in the corresponding timeframe. The point wasn't about Nintendo being profitable during that time, it was about Nintendo being more profitable than Sony during that time. Nintendo had notably lower unit sales of hardware and software, but made more money.

You were supposed to show something that supports your argument that Nintendo had exclusivity deals with third parties, but instead you picked a quote that says that Nintendo turned games down which is the opposite of making deals with third parties (i. e. not even allowing them to publish certain games). Nintendo limiting the amount of games that third parties could publish during the NES era and early SNES era is well-known, but that's something entirely different to what you claimed. Likewise, you've got nothing to support your statement that Sega got shitty versions of games (i. e. multiplats were worse on the Genesis/Mega Drive because Nintendo paid for that to be the case); what your quote states is that Sega didn't turn down games, so they had exclusives from third parties that were duds.

1. You barely scraped through what I sent you, but honestly, I don't care.

2. If you really are curious I guess making a simple google search will not be too hard for you.

Have a nice day!



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

yvanjean said:

Even more reason Microsoft had to acquire Bethesda, I hope Microsoft at the very least slap a time exclusive on all future Zenimax games.  

So MS went even further so that is good for the market because? My god, the double standard and hypocrisy that you talk about is so high, that it's getting radioactive :))))



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

sales2099 said:
goopy20 said:

You forgot quantity there. I subscribed for 2 months and finished Wasteland 3, Battletoads, Grounded, Ori and played enough of Flightsim to know that it's not my cup of tea. Now I'm in lockdown, bored out of my mind and staring at 200 games thinking "nope, nope, nope". It's only $10 bucks but I cancelled anyway - because people are cheap bastards like that - waiting for new big releases before I sign up again. For MS to prevent this they'll need 3 things

  • quantity so every month there are a couple of A or AA games that'll make people wonder "what's next?!"
  • GAAS games that people can play forever
  • Or just cut normal AAA games into episodic content

Adding stuff to spider man is not the same thing as what they're doing with Halo. Games like Spider Man maybe get some DLC and then we're waiting for a sequel. With Halo there will be no sequel, they went full destiny on us. Not saying that is bad, we still have to wait and see how that'll turn out. All I'm saying is that they didn't make Halo GAAS because of design choice, they made it like that because of a business decision. And they'll probably do the same thing with most of their IPs. 

Really hope the service won’t be plagued by people who just beat the games they want and immediately unsubscribe. If you do what you do you can’t act surprised that games like Sea of Thieves are GAAS and Halo Infinite multiplayer is F2P. 

And it still amuses me that you have a anti Xbox reputation but admit to playing a LOT of their 1st party games this year. It shows MS has a winning strategy of reaching people that normally wouldn’t touch Xbox. 

Of course they will. Like I said, people are cheap bastards like that and why stay subscribed to a service if you're not using it? This is why Sony isn't releasing their AAA exclusives day one on PsNow. People would just sign up for a trial month, play the 1 or 2 major exclusives of the year and cancel again. 

The GP model just doesn't work with AAA titles like that as they take years to make and cost a fortune. MS bought a bunch of studios that are known for making A/AA games and now that they're under MS's wings, Xboy guys are all expecting them to make AAA games. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that maybe they bought those studios because they want them to keep pouring out A/AA games. Even Don Mattrick said games like Ninja Blade aren't $60 games but that they are perfect for GP. Release a bunch of them every month and people will always be wondering "what's next?" and stay subscribed. 

I don't know why you think I would never touch a Xbox. I've owned the OG Xbox, 360 and bought a ton of Xbox games. I just didn't buy a Xone because I had no reason to. Same thing with Series X. If it had Gears or Halo exclusive, I probably would have bought one. But now that they're all on PC, I see no reason to buy one either. I think most people will feel that way if they release the GP app on TV's, Ps5 and the Switch. Doesn't mean I'm not going to take advantage of it because I'm allergic to the Xbox brand.

 

Last edited by goopy20 - on 23 September 2020

yvanjean said:

Even more reason Microsoft had to acquire Bethesda, I hope Microsoft at the very least slap a time exclusive on all future Zenimax games.  

Timed exclusivity = /= full time exclusivity. In fact if Sony wasn't the one who made the deal,  Microsoft will. Time exclusivity was introduce by Xbox in Xbox 360 era. 

 " My opinion ",  Microsoft will not gain anything by buying publisher only for exclusivity . They target is gamepass , so i bet the games that has been multiplat franchise will still be exist on PS5 for normal next gen price (70 USD)  but will be free on gamepass. That alone will attract people to buy gampass on PC, Xbox or Xcloud.

Last edited by HollyGamer - on 23 September 2020

HollyGamer said:
yvanjean said:

Even more reason Microsoft had to acquire Bethesda, I hope Microsoft at the very least slap a time exclusive on all future Zenimax games.  

Timed exclusivity = /= full time exclusivity. In fact if Sony wasn't the one who made the deal,  Microsoft will. Time exclusivity was introduce by Xbox in Xbox 360 era. 

 " My opinion ",  Microsoft will not anything by buying publisher only for exclusivity . They target is gamepass , so i bet the games that has been multiplat franchise will still be exist on PS5 for normal next gen price (70 USD)  but will be free on gamepass. That alone will attract people to buy gampass on PC, Xbox or Xcloud.

Of course they didn't. Just look at Mojang. MS spend billions on it and did it make any difference? Minecraft and MC Dungeons still went multiplat and it didn't do anything for Xone sales. MS doesn't care about our console wars, they want to make money. And they're not doing that by excluding the far biggest console platform. 

7.5B man, I wonder how many GP subscribers it takes to break even on an investment like that? Just to put things in perspective. Sony just had the 2nd best selling console in gaming history, outselling Xbox almost 3/1. Now in 2018 the ps5 made 17B in total revenue but "only" 1,7B in net revenue. Even with the success of the ps4, it would have taken almost an entire console generation for Sony to break even if they bought Zenimax... Its pretty obvious MS didn't make an investment like that just to lock it behind Series X