But it's not about platforms trying to differentiate themselves and offer different things, this was a forced outcome by Microsoft. Bethesda games have always been part and parcel of the Playstation library and have done well on the system.

I think it would probably be a complete failure if Sony tries to create an Elder Scrolls like gameplay experience. Some games like GTA, Elder Scrolls and The Witcher cant simply be copied with big budgets and dev teams. This is the exact reason MS has struggled in its first party offering.

Games of that magnitude require experience.

I would say Sony is better off in trying to create a souls like game or a western RPG that is perhaps not as ambitious as Elder Scrolls (atleast in its first attempt).

Financially what would make more sense?

1. Don't release on ps5, get more GP subscriptions by getting the die hard fans to play it in the XBox ecosystem. (But not everyone will bother, plenty to play)
2. Release on PS5, get all that $70 per game at release and more in DLC. (DLC will also sell on GP, but those subscribing just to play the next Skyrim won't buy it)

Either way it will be a boost for GP as a day one release on there. MS could even do both, 1 year exclusive on XBox, then release on PS5 to get the hold outs to hand over their cash. Not releasing on PS5 seems to be leaving a lot of money on the table. Sony is realizing this as well now and is bringing more to PC.

As for making a replacement, it takes many years for a new IP and multiple sequels before it could begin to touch the mind share of fallout and elder scrolls.

Games like this take a lot of time and resources to develop and are usually always release buggy and need a tonne of patches at launch because of the scale and sheer complexity of them. Take Starfield, Bethesda trademarked that back in 2013 and we're finally seeing the fruition of the game nearing a decade later. The same with TES 6. I wouldn't say they need to recreate a sandbox like RPG when they don't have any experience in doing any and would rather they have their dev teams play to their own strengths.

Like they tried to compete on the FPS scene with Killzone and subsequently Resistance series. They never really found long lasting success with either series. Granted Resistance was Sony published and Insomniac was still Independent back then. Though they let Guerilla do their own thing and we got Horizon Zero Dawn. Their strategy of partnering up with Japanese devs like SE, From, SEGA etc for RPG's is a good working formula. And tbh I'd rather them do that than waste a bunch of time and resources and potentially end up like another Cyberpunk.

Ahh, that answers that question https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021-11-15-xbox-boss-discusses-the-elder-scrolls-6-console-exclusivity

In an interview with GQ for the Xbox 20th anniversary, Spencer commented on the acquisition of Bethesda parent company ZeniMax Media last year for a historic $7.5bn. Since then, the company's next big title Starfield has been confirmed as Xbox and PC only. Spencer says he sees the same for The Elder Scrolls 6.

So a month of GP it will be when I have time left over for Elder Scrolls 6. Or perhaps I'll have a slim version of Series X by then and can stay physical :) Maybe it will even be slightly less buggy with just PC and XBox to support!

Meanwhile, plenty of time to flip flop, and not like it's smart to play Bethesda games right when they come out anyway. Might as well wait a year after release to play the finished version and then you'll know whether it's actually going to stay exclusive.

Skyrim wasn't just a big hit on PS360, the series also has a massive following on PC. Hence, I am quite certain the game trounced Final Fantasy even before remasters. I think its also safe to assume a Skyrim remaster had more sales potential than any FF game.

I'm simply saying if Playstation lost Bethesda RPGs, there would be a boost in Xbox hardware sales. While the Playstation will benefit less from getting Final Fantasy 16 exclusively because that's the platform most of the fans already are at. Which probably makes the series easier to money hat to begin with. Hence, they are money hatting the IP they already dominate in sales.

Regardless when FF16 releases, its just not a game the Xbox audience would be particularly excited about. And hey, Xbox still has Fable and Outer Worlds 2 coming eventually. Generally speaking, MS is doing well in the RPG genre.

Well Sony's effort to mitigate the impact is also a series Playstation already dominates. To the contrary, Bethesda RPGs are really popular on Playstation. That's why I personally would be surprised if those games don't come to Playstation. Nothing to really debate there, just wait and see because I'm still skeptical.

I'm not denying FF has mainstream appeal, I'm saying its not the Xbox audience. As in a vast majority of its sales are not on Xbox. Fable had more success on Xbox than Final Fantasy.

Sony will have a chunk of the RPG market simply for having a large userbase. BUT, MS will gain sales if Playstation loses Bethesda RPGs. I'm kinda curious to see what route MS goes. Gamepass can still grow without major multiplat IPs going exclusive.

I don't think Sony needs games to replace Bethesda's titles, they will likely do their own thing and release their own games rather than try and copy the competition, which would be a good thing for the market in my opinion, more differentiators for people to choose Xbox, Switch or Playstation, rather than clones of each other with a couple of exclusives,.

Open world Knack RPG would make all other games obselete. Is that really what we'd want?

Yeah, if it wasn't for those meddling Xbox fanboys, Knack's user score would be a perfect 10.