By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsoft Has Put Themselves Back In The Game!

drinkandswim said:

Microsoft is not going to make the games exclusive. They already gave up on the console war and are going subscription based. They care very little about selling systems now and only want to maximize game sales. So that means having their IP’s available in as many places as possible. Hence why there are Xbox Games on android, PC, Nintendo and Sony platforms.

Xbox could have made a deal to get Zenimax games on gamepass day 1 and it would have been significantly cheaper than buying them outright. Exclusive content drives sales and Xbox absolutely cares about console sales. Why would they release a $299 console, and why would they be pushing the Series S/X so hard if they didn't care? I don't understand how anyone comes to the conclusion, "Xbox doesn't care about selling consoles." It's not even close to be true. 

If Xbox wanted all their IP's available everywhere, why isn't Hellblade 2 going to the Ps5? Same with Grounded, Avowed, Fable, Halo, etc.

Minecraft IP is the one and only exception when it comes to 1st party. Xbox came out and announced Minecraft would continue to release on all platforms right from the get go. They have said no such thing for these new studios, and have actually repeated what they said after they did their first acquisition spree in 2018 with "case by case." Now all those games will only release on the Xbox ecosystem besides titles with prior agree like Wasteland 3, and Psychonauts 2. They are saying the same thing with these studios now. 

As soon as gamers like yourself accept this, you will be much off. 



Around the Network
Random_Matt said:
You do know their games cost 100's of millions right? Staying exclusive to MS means it will be filled with MT's to pay for it. Game pass won't pay for it by itself, good luck luck.

Ouch. Yeah, I doubt sales from PC + Series X/S will be large enough to fund the games entirely on their own. MS is not like Sony, or Nintendo. They've never had a platform that sold over 100 million units. That's the sort of sales you need to make an exclusive worthwhile. At 50-60 million XB Series just won't have enough of an install base to recover from a lack of Sony customers.

That's why, I'm pretty sure MS is going to keep Bethesda 3rd party.



Dulfite said:
Hynad said:

As someone who is buying both next gen consoles by the beginning of 2021 (PS5 at launch, and XBSX in January), the exclusivity stuff shouldn’t bother me much. That being said, I was fully expecting The Elder Scrolls VI to be VR ready, and if it is, I am not yet so sure MS is going to have a headset compatible for their console. Something I know is in the cards for the PS5. And if that’s the case, that’s a bummer, because Skyrim is one of my favourite games to play in VR. :/

Do you shout dragon words while looking into the dark eyes of your modded Thomas the Train dragon as it choo choo's in retort?

What’s your problem?



Cerebralbore101 said:
Random_Matt said:
You do know their games cost 100's of millions right? Staying exclusive to MS means it will be filled with MT's to pay for it. Game pass won't pay for it by itself, good luck luck.

Ouch. Yeah, I doubt sales from PC + Series X/S will be large enough to fund the games entirely on their own. MS is not like Sony, or Nintendo. They've never had a platform that sold over 100 million units. That's the sort of sales you need to make an exclusive worthwhile. At 50-60 million XB Series just won't have enough of an install base to recover from a lack of Sony customers.

That's why, I'm pretty sure MS is going to keep Bethesda 3rd party.

They also have never had the sheer number of 1st party developers before. Anything can happen. They will be getting game sales from Xbox, Windows store, Steam, along with gamepass/ultimate sub sales. Make games like ES6 and Fallout 5 exclusive will bring millions of gamers over to Xbox ecosystem. 

Xbox isn't worried about short term sales, this is about long term. When(notice how I didn't say if) Gamepass subs are a 30+ million, funding games won't be a problem.  

Don't worry though, Fallout 76 and ESO will probably continue to be multiplat so at least ps5 users can look forward to that. 



What I expect is that games like Elder Scrolls Online and Fallout 76 remain multiplatform but I seriously doubt the big guns like ES6, Fallout 5, the next Doom, Starfield, etc, will also be released for the PS5....I think Starfield will finally be shown next year and it´ll be announced as exclusive to the Xbox ecosystem,They want people to subscribe to gamepass and they´re playing the long game here, they didn´t pay 7.5 billion with the expectation that this major acquisition pays for itself in the short term...no, they´ll keep the big guns locked tight in the Xbox ecosystem hoping that´ll translate into many more millions of people subscribing to gamepass and in the medium/long term be well positioned against companies such as Amazon, Google.All these moves are aiming higher than just Sony in the console space.



Around the Network
Barkley said:

Errr....

"KEEP IT ALL ON XBOX, MICROSOFT! I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THESE GAMES ON PLAYSTATION! FORCE ME to buy your console"

Why would you want to be forced to buy more hardware to play games on rather than play them on hardware you already have.

The ideal scenario for consumers is all games on every system. Choose the one you want, get everything. No need to shell out money on hardware you don't need.

Imagine getting six+ likes on teh Chartz for this post BEFORE MS bought Bethesda.



Microsoft has clearly been moving away from Console Exclusivity. Which is why their games will be available on phones and are available on PC day one of release. I mean maybe you think they need to be part of the console war to be successful. It just isnt true. Software sales is where most of the money is made, not console sales. And the market is only headed further in that direction. Microsoft was one of the first heavy supporters of cross platform play.


There are multiple reasons for this. 1) its more profitable to sell more games (consoles are not that profitable, especially their first few years). 2) Microsoft cannot win a console war against Sony or Nintendo. Nintendo has already pegged itself as a second purchase for most hardcore gamers because of its portable nature and Sony by far has better exclusives than Microsoft. I cant see Microsoft turning around a year from now and say ok all our IP’s are now exclusive. Could they? Sure. But Microsoft wants to make as much money as possible on their IP’s. Keeping them exclusive won’t do that.



zero129 said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

They said they believe in generations and have games (at launch as well) that are exclusive to PS5. Sure they could've been clearer but we do have exclusive next gen experiences day 1 like promised.

Spiderman is backwards compatible so you do not need to buy Spiderman again, according to them a lot of work went into the remaster which is why they are charging for it. We'll see if it's worth it, I doubt it is but we won't know until it comes out.

Day 1 exclusives to PS now is never something you would've expected from them, and to say it's anti consumer to not do so is really weird. Microsoft can afford to lose money on Gamepass basically forever until it spreads enough and they slowly price up the subscription enough for it to make money. Sony can't, why would they leave a tried and true business model to then lose money every year on a service they clearly don't need to have?

Pot and kettle on that spiderman exclusive deal. 

MS also has next gen exclusive games at launch that isnt on XBOne. Only thing is MS was clear from the get go, Sony just tried to hide the fact and let MS take the shit for it.

All of Xbox One games are backward compat too. Only difference here is if one of them XBOne games have a nextgen version MS wont charge you again for that version unlike Sony. I mean im sure work went into them remastered games on XBS S/X too right?.

Even without Day 1 releases, my main problem with PSNow is how Sony removes their own games from the platform (Mostly their popular ones) such as Spider Man that was put on the service after like a year and only for like a month just to force their customers to then go buy the game. Also the is no reason why sony cant do Day 1 on PSNow and they will at some point to compete wth MS anyways.. And then they will have egg on their face for trying to nickle and dime their customers when "It suddenly is ok to have games Day 1 on PSNow"

You sound like the wife that keeps getting beat but needs to make up excuses for why its ok.

Ah yes, the PC Gamer that benefits massively from the great deal that is game pass is the beaten wife.

Sony could've and should've been more clear with their message.

As I said, we don't know what they have done for spiderman remaster, and I didn't say Xbox wasn't BC. A next gen version isn't the same as a remaster. Unless you're going to target anyone that has sold a remaster of a game including MS. 

I hope they do put their exclusives on PS Now Day 1. But I understand they cannot afford to do that, and their business functions better with the model they've always used. Will it work out in the long run? I don't know.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

ArchangelMadzz said:
sales2099 said:

Like I said they aren’t 2006 Sony. But by comparison they certainly asking for more money when compared to what Xbox is doing. And they are far from as transparent. 

They are asking for more money, 100%. It would be anti consumer if Microsoft's model was Sony's model last gen and now they decide they want to charge money for each game. But that's not what happened here. MS is doing their own very expensive thing, and to call Sony anti-consumer for not copying them is illogical at best. 

It's like if Samsung started including 2 spare batteries, and chucked in a smaller version of the phone in for free. You couldn't call Oneplus anti consumer cause they can't afford to do that ahaha.

Never said it’s necessarily logical. Consumers will see the side by side comparisons regardless of their different approaches. 

Xbox controllers carry over, Dual Shock doesn’t. Sony charges for Spiderman remaster, Xbox 1st party upgrades are free. One has a relaxed stance on B.C. and Xbox goes all the way back to OG Xbox. One doesn’t put their exclusives on their sub service day 1 and the other does. One puts their games on PC case by case years later and Xbox does Windows Store/Steam day 1. One $499 console is weaker specs then the Xbox $499 console. One is transparent and the other is best case vague and worst case misleading.

This ain’t 2006 but it’s clear who’s more pro consumer. 



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

They are asking for more money, 100%. It would be anti consumer if Microsoft's model was Sony's model last gen and now they decide they want to charge money for each game. But that's not what happened here. MS is doing their own very expensive thing, and to call Sony anti-consumer for not copying them is illogical at best. 

It's like if Samsung started including 2 spare batteries, and chucked in a smaller version of the phone in for free. You couldn't call Oneplus anti consumer cause they can't afford to do that ahaha.

Never said it’s necessarily logical. Consumers will see the side by side comparisons regardless of their different approaches. 

Xbox controllers carry over, Dual Shock doesn’t. Sony charges for Spiderman remaster, Xbox 1st party upgrades are free. One has a relaxed stance on B.C. and Xbox goes all the way back to OG Xbox. One doesn’t put their exclusives on their sub service day 1 and the other does. One puts their games on PC case by case years later and Xbox does Windows Store/Steam day 1. One $499 console is weaker specs then the Xbox $499 console. One is transparent and the other is best case vague and worst case misleading.

This ain’t 2006 but it’s clear who’s more pro consumer. 

I'm not arguing about what consumers will see, I'm arguing what's the case.

When dualshock didn't carry over on PS3 and PS4 it sucked, that's not good. Sony have full BC to PS4 cause it's easy, and they didn't want to invest the time for people that want to play PS3/2/1 games on PS5. Would it be better with it? Of course more features are always better. But it already has more BC than PS4 did and that sold pretty well without it.. I think PS4 BC will satisfy 99% of gamers in the market. Despite how fun it would be to play Vice City on a $500 console.

I'd love all Sony games to go to PC I have Horizon on steam. I wouldn't have to buy a Playstation if I want to play them, but like Nintendo, they value their hardware and software mixture and believe it's worth buying their hardware for the games and over 110 million people over the past 7 years agree.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'