Microsoft Causes Confusion With Statement About Sony 'Excluding' Games From Xbox

Lots of dirty laundry from both Sony and Microsoft are probably going to be revealed over this ABK battle.

Just proves how anti consumer Sony is and I'm not happy with Square Enix either. I still think Sony are buying them that's why Square Enix sold the studios Sony didn't want to Embracer. They are waiting for the Activision Blizzard deal first so they can still try and block.

They should have been honest from the start it's quite obvious these games will never go on Xbox. Looking like I made the right choice to buy Final Fantasy XVI on PS5 instead of waiting.

@Cyberpsycho I agree wholeheartedly with you. But remember, if Sony are doing it it's Pro Consumer, for the good of the gaming community. Xbox, no matter what they do will ALWAYS be the bad guys because the masses don't know any better.

Doesn’t Sony own the Bloodborne IP?

I really want Sony to respond to this. There has been like 2 years of speculation over this since FFVIIR 6 month exclusivity period was up.

big bad Sony again

Keep reaching. Makes this deal seem like a bad one.

Personally don`t see the point of exclusives.

@Kaloudz well see that’s part of the deal when it’s timed. If people knows it’s timed they’ll wait. I think that part is dumb though. Like exclusive content is part of business but then don’t act like it’s not timed or something

@Sakisa I can’t wait 😈

Something tells me that the head of Xbox and the head of PlayStation won't be having lunch together anytime soon. 🤣

@SplooshDmg The FF argument is a pretty valid one overall. They’ve basically isolated the franchise.. and I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried do that with Silent Hill.

That said I agreed. it’s normal exclusivity agreements being Re wrapped as “Sony is blocking content”.

Microsoft & SquareEnix need to clarify what's going on. Is DioField, Star Ocean & Crisis Core the best we are gonna get or is it the last? I'd love FF14, FF7 Remake, Harvestella, Tactics Ogre Reborn plus more.

MS is forced to make this dumb argument because the whole attempt to block the deal revolves around this stupid argument that exclusivity is a new thing and is bad for the industry. MS is right to point out the stupidity of complaining that the platform with the least amount of exclusive games could gain a few more (even though they have promised in writing that some of them wont be exclusive.)

The whole situation around FF7:R not coming to Xbox has really soured my view on Sony and Square Enix.

We just want clarification. Tell us if it is coming or not. At least treat us with some dignity rather than stringing us along.

I love that franchise and wanted it on every platform, including Xbox. But if they aren’t bringing it, the least they can do is tell us. And I say that as someone who already platinums FF7:R on my PS4.

Personally, I’ve now sold my PS4 and PS5 and bought a gaming PC instead. That, along with my Xbox and Switch, will suffice until Sony get their act together. They’re really making missteps in my mind recently.

@mousieone Yes

@Para1966 Ummm maybe so you can separate yourself from your competitors.

@Kienda Agreed. Even though they came to Gamepass, bought every classic Final Fantasy to support. Got them all the way up to 12.

Not buying anymore until they clear it up.

I still have my PS4. But it is strictly offline and mainly just used for Gundam Breaker 3 lol.

All this free press for Square lol! I used to have a PS for the exclusives, but its just not worth it to me anymore. all the PS exclusives, including FF, don't cater to what i like most, western RPG's, sim/strategy/builders and shooters! Xbox and PC is all I need these days.

@Kienda Couldn't have said any better. It hurts me because I love Square Enix games and wish to support them, but I feel like they don't deserve my support. Not when they treat me like some sort of inferior costumer.

Such a weak argument. Microsoft are sounding like absolute babies at the moment. Gears of war, Horizon, Dead Rising, Ryse. Some games that have been made by other Devs but published by Xbox. (Microsoft paid for the rights) you cannot criticise other companies on something you have done in the past yourself. It's like telling my 18 year old son not to drink alcohol when I was a wreck at 18.. haha

They are both as bad as each other and have both done business deals that us gamer may have not appreciated and it will continue to be that way as it is a business after all.
Bit what matter is Games and Microsoft with Xbox just need to get on and tell us what that they are releasing next year

@Kienda I agree. It honestly sours my sentiment toward Sony, I see them as the hostage situation console at this point. However, I'm not even sure it's really Sony's own fault as much as Square's. Is there ANY other company even with Sony involvement that this situation exists with where players are strung along with no idea what is happening? Capcom and SFV was up front that sony paid for it and that's that. Platinum was up front about bayonetta that Nintendo paid for it and that's that. Kojima, everyone knows what platforms his games are on without speculating. There's some speculation on Stray, but that's the only one I can think of. It's really Square at the heart of all these will it or won't it controversies. I like many Square games, but I honestly feel better dealing with EA than Square. They may be an illegal gambling operation, but at least they tell you that up front.

@mousieone Not necessarily. I think we can't tell if this is just MS presenting "exclusivity" as content blocking, or if this is actual content blocking. But from the audience, the situation looks like this might be true at face value. If these are "game is exclusive to console for lifetime" or "game is exclusive to console for fixed duration" it is one thing. if it is "game is denied release on Xbox only" that's a very different kind of thing. You can pay to have exclusive distribution. You can't pay to specifically interfere in specific competitor's distribution. That files under collusion and price fixing.

AT&T for example, could pay for exclusive distribution rights for iPhone, preventing any other retailer but their own and Apple's own stores from selling any iPhones or accessories at all. But they can't (legally) pay purely to prevent T-Mobile from selling them in their stores while Verizon, Best Buy, Walmart, etc are able to sell them. You can't simply bribe the supply chain to stop supplying your competitors, which is the fastest track there is to a monopoly. That's (one many) things Rockefeller was done in for with Standard Oil under anti-trust and racketeering. That, rebates, and the strong-arming ("Gee, that's a really nice refinery you've got there...it would be a shame if something were to happen to it.....you wouldn't have to worry about if if you signed this sale agreement...")

@EquiinoxGII Wait. So because you were an idiot as a kid you're not going to do anything to keep yours from being an idiot as well?

Explains 90% of the world's issues there. 😂

@SplooshDmg The strangest part is that saying "never gonna be on Xbox, buy a Playstation" would actually be a .....better exclusivity strategy? Same as Bayonetta for Nintendo, same as Starfield for MS. What kind of exclusivity strategy if it's really exclusive, refuses to tell anyone that it's actually exclusive? Saying that day one means everyone that wants to play has to buy the platform. Not saying it means waiting and not doing so may pay off. Hiding an actual exclusivity deal does not help Sony at all. Announcing it would.

The only two reasons I can think of that they would not simply say that are that it is in fact NOT exclusive, therefore, it may come to Xbox. Or it's part of them illegally blocking competitor's distribution channels, a mutually illegal market manipulation scam, that they can ever actually admit to in words, and may exist as a handshake and not so as not to leave a paper trail. Or it's square going rogue and trying behind the scenes to milk MS for cash, and it's not exclusive, they just hold content hostage until they get a payout they want.

@themightyant Some of it is MS's clever legal team, where you'd expect no less, but a lot of it is because Sony's own actions over 20 years have simply made it easy. The built a minefield around their own yard. All you have to do is throw stones in their general direction and they start blowing stuff up. When your entire business strategy revolves around cloak and dagger shady backroom deals that you'd expect from a DC lobby group, and then decide to raise a ruckus over your wealthier competitor for simply using their wealth to legit buy marketshare clean, open, and honestly....they're going to have an easy time flipping the dagger around, because Sony has a LOT to hide, and XB's only crime is being a rich kid that can use daddy's money to buy the other rich kid's toys out from under them. People may not like the rich kid, and daddy's money may be blood money, but he has a paper trail and it's all in the daylight.

@NEStalgia @SplooshDmg Well I think part of it is that Sony initially enters into say a year or two exclusivity, but then extends that if they feel the title is still doing well for them as an exclusive. People assume it's one and done, but it's not. At least not anymore, so with FFR the original deal was a year, then they extended. People wrongly assumed the extension was another year. Now, it still could be timed but the timing window has changed beyond a year. I have to wonder if some of it is a subtle threat on Square's part to Sony... but anyway

Personally, that's the irritating part.

As for specific platform exclusion, none of the evidence suggests this is occurring despite what some think.

However, you are talking about what's legal in the States. Japan has different laws. I'd like the remind people the FF games never hit GP in Japan. They were specifically prevented from being on GP in that country. Now, why I don't know. But for a fact they were. Monster Hunter World was prevented from having Asian language versions except on Playstation. There are a number of games like Plague Tale Requiem whose Japanese language version was postponed until the PS version was launched. While I don't necessarily think this is Sony's specific doing, just the very idea of currying favor still very much exists in many countries.

Anyway, as for "Blocking" content argument. MS's argument loses steam with bringing Bloodborne in, however, I haven't read all the documents. What I believe this is, is a piece a larger context. And that's that publishers often times give Sony a first crack at exclusivity or ownership before MS gets a chance to do so. Meaning that From Software may have offered Sony Exclusivity rights before MS got a chance to "Bid" on them. But again this is just my initial theory as we are only getting bits of an over all story and not the whole thing. Yet anyway.

With microsoft buying the market, i hope Sony locks down Square, Sega and all the Japan games. Only fair with how much Xbox has forcibly removed from the market

The gloves are coming off. I like that. Exclusivity isn't the problem as without exclusive no platform will stay afloat. But blocking games from competition is anti trust. Who knows Microsoft may sue Sony for their behaviour under anti trust law.

@Rmg0731 exactly how much was removed from the market? Because as of yet three games have released and three are slated. And all but 1 was a new IP. So I don’t think you can really claim that at all.

Neither Grounded, Pentiment, or that Ninja Theory game that died would have see light of day would MS funding their too small and niche.

Given that only 20% of FFXV sales were on Xbox One it might be that Square Enix just doesn’t consider it to be financially viable to bother releasing games on the console. Octopath only got released because Microsoft licensed it for Game Pass and SE likely made more money that way than selling it directly.

Now, I already know Street Fighter 5 was an exclusion agreement. Sony bankroll some of the development costs, and it ends up exclusive to Playstation or Windows platforms, and the fact Monster Hunter Rise is coming to XBOX next month shoots down arguments from a few weeks back over Nintendo doing similar 'exclusion' deals.

So, yes, FF7R having both the EGS and Steam release windows pass but no sign of it on Nintendo or XBOX...
Now, I'd understand Nintendo, since games need a lot more work to run on the system, but XBOX?
Was sus from the start.

@InterceptorAlpha exactly! Haha, no I wasnt quite saying it in that way tbh. I never actually said I was an idiot, but everyone needs to have life lessons, learning from those mistakes. But my point was contradiction.

Something else seems off about this, not just that they brought up a Sony IP (Bloodborne). Wasn't it already confirmed that Silent Hill 2 Remake was launching same day PS5 and PC with 1 year timed exclusivity? This isn't your FFVII Remake type deal where timed exclusivity means coming to PC later.

So it seems like either Microsoft's trying to mislead regulators or a more powerful Switch is going to reveal that Sony has been literally only blocking Xbox. FFVII Remake for example wouldn't be able to run natively on the current Switch but a more powerful Switch would be able to.

@SplooshDmg No, it's not safe to assume that exclusivity is gone. I don't know why people think PC exclusivity has anything to do with console exclusivity and vice versa. For instance, Ooblets was exclusive to Xbox on Console and EGS on PC at the same time., It's entirely possible that Sony reupped the console exclusivity but didn't reup the PC one. And therefore still has console exclusivity. No proof that console exclusivity is gone at all.

I think most devs shop for that, but I'm just saying that bringing up Bloodborne, when it's owned by Sony, doesn't make a good argument. That is unless there is another argument that we haven't seen that they are trying to reference with it. I don't know if it's hard to say. I mean I don't understand why MS mentioned Bloodborne unless they simply are trying to swindle the CMA, but a quick IP check would solve that. But then MS has had their IPs published on other platforms frequently and before Ori, so it's entirely possible they don't see the weird comparison. Technically, they own Blue Dragon, Minecraft, and Mech Warrior in a very weird way... They are all published on other platforms. I'm also convinced they have some sort of ownership or dealings with the Super Lucky IP as well...

MS owns a lot of IP just like Nintendo and Sony ... >_< I want some new games with those IPs.... coughs sorry back on topic.

regarding SE, i think an article over on pushsquare highlights why Xbox doesnt get games, in Japan 35 XSX and 900XSS sold in a week.

@mousieone yep they do this is just people talking out their arse lol

@SplooshDmg the Windows might clear but what’s not as you said is platforms. There is t a world that a Crisis Core makes sense and the remake doesn’t. And yes many games are barred from PC as well but that’s changing and has been for a while many many games aren’t or the window is known upfront.

Ms wouldn’t be aggressive with exclusives anymore because it costs them money. It doesn’t make them money. I’d be surprised if it ever really made a dent. If it did they would be aggressive. Plenty of Western studios would take the bag. But MS exclusives don’t make people buy Xboxes.

However I’m not sure it really helps Sony either. Can you honestly tell me there were millions of Xboxes owners that bought PS5s for FF? Maybe a million at best. But the reality is FF was probably going to sell close to that number on PS anyway. Did that really make a big difference? Image wise sure but market share?

On the other hand exclusive multiplayer games like Splatoon do bring in new users.

Overall I think this is some obscure game of chicken. I really want the dirty laundry aired so I have juicy content from both sides to eat popcorn over.

Paying publishers to starve rival platforms of software support has been Sony's go-to strategy for generations. Literally since the PS1. I don't know why the thought should alarm people now.

😤 Aren't some of you tired of hearing about Playstation over here on the Xbox site? This is ridiculous. I love Xbox and want to hear what's happening with Xbox, not what Playstation is doing or not doing to Xbox. I really REALLY can't wait til the Acti/Blizz deal is finalized so we can stop hearing about all of this other bs.

@Ralizah the PS1 was much more capable than other consoles at the time , aswell as using disks & not being limited to 64mb cartridges it was just a better console to develop for

@SplooshDmg I supposed I should have prefaced that as third party exclusive single player content doesn’t move the needle from a business standpoint very much. MS is a trillion dollar company that needs a return on investments that third party exclusives don’t do or at least not as much as day 1 GP additions. Entire studios have some many other elements that make that return doable.

And Sony doesn’t need a rerun on investment as much as mindshare.

Again a game of chicken that leaves fans in the dark and upset blaming corporations. I mean they shouldn’t aligned with any corporation. But it’s almost like the system is rigged to make you do so.

@SplooshDmg Unfortunately true. 😑

@Would_you_kindly I'm not bashing the PS1. It's one of my all-time favorite consoles. But Sony signed multiple exclusivity agreements back in the day, including with Square, which locked down several major players in the Japanese gaming market. It's just how they do things, and have done things, as long as they've been in the industry. It wasn't even until the PS3 that they started to develop first-party games that could compete with what Microsoft and Nintendo were putting out.

@Ralizah one of my all time favourite first party playstation games is the getaway that released on PS2 shame they let that IP die they could have a real GTA competitor with that if done right

Sony doing what Sony do best.

@SplooshDmg until recently ibwas considering buying a PS5, but with the whining Sony is doing considering how many devs they've paid to not put games in Xbox, I'll just invest that money into a PC

Sony has never been known for playing nice with others.

@Ralizah PS1 was a strange time in that they didn't really NEED the agreements, the games were bound to them by nature of the storage media it used and the hardware otherwise. FF7 could not have appeared on N64 because the hardware wouldn't allow it, and difference in the Saturn architecture also prevented it. So Sony got a lot of "exclusivity" just due to hardware uniqueness. But they got used to that business model, and it meshed nicely with how they do business in the music industry.

Sheesh, if you want to see the definition of an evil company, Sony Music should be everyone's first stop. That is one NASTY company.

@stvevan Inside Japan, no question, Xbox practically doesn't exist at all and never did (in fact it exists now more than before.) But so much of the revenue for Japanese devs is from foreign fans, not just Japan. They absolutely try to be where the customers are. There's also no question XB is the smaller market for those games, but that will be true until a market is built for it, which is largely up to MS, and they've been putting effort into that. Japan's market, no question, Xbox isn't beneficial. But outside Japan, the bigger XB is as a platform, the more important to Japanese devs it is to be on it and reach those customer. Again, MS has to pave the way but footing the bill to build that market, and they've been doing so (thus Persona, etc.)

@RadioHedgeFund What company would want to forego TWENTY PERCENT of their market by not making a port to another platform. A fifth of revenue is a heck of a lot of money, certainly profitable to the cost of porting it.

@SplooshDmg Exactly. The whole POINT of exclusivity is to tell everyone it's exclusively available on your platform so they have to buy your platform to play this game! Why buy exclusivity for millions and then say "maybe our competitors will get it, we won't tell you." Is it cheaper to buy "implied exclusivity" instead of exclusivity? Like exclusivity that only PS gets the game permanently is $100M, but it's only $40M for both parties to agree to vaguely insinuate it might be exclusive even though it's not?

"Forespoken: Available on PS5 for sure, no question absolutely, no doubt about it that this game will be available on PS5 so you don't have to wonder about it like some other platforms!" That should not be worth as much money as "ONLY ON PS5!" "Available ONLY on PS5 and PC" or "Console exclusive to PS" all make sense for marketing something they pay for exclusivity on. But "we won't say, can't say, we can't speak for the future" blah blah all does not sound like Sony can claim actual exclusivity, otherwise they would do so. Which means either they can't say they hold exclusivity because they do not (meaning Square is the problem) or because they can't "say" it because they "officially" do not, it's a nod and wink deal to avoid legally problematic documents and money changing hands over the table because it's a legally sketchy or flat illegal agreement that's only wrong if they're caught. There's really no other alternative. If they openly had legal purchased exclusivity they would absolutely say so because they're just burning money if they don't.

@NEStalgia That depends if Sony made up the difference by lowering their cut.

Since everyone here hates console third party exclusives deals then where is Blue Dragon, Lost odyssey, Dead rising 3 and Ori games on Playstation?
Or is it fine when Microsoft does it?

I really don’t have a problem with Sony paying for the likes of FF7R (it was sh*t anyway) to be exclusive, they could be more transparent about the length of their deals though.

Microsoft have done the same in the past and still should be. They should also be focussing on getting Xbox first party exclusives out to rival PlayStations. Xbox like to be seen as the good guys in the console space, well good guys finish last, and they have been for over a decade.

@SplooshDmg no joke. FF is one of those brands that I want everywhere. And a part of me really hopes TES6 isn’t exclusive. sighs

@mousieone "no joke. FF is one of those brands that I want everywhere."

You're in luck because ever since Sakaguchi quit, FF has been all over the place!

If Sony keeps doing things the way there doing them, I firmly believe TES6 will be on Amazon Luna. Sony could have had an ally to price fix with against cloud, preserving the status quo in MS. But they declared war instead thankfully.

@SplooshDmg Imagine if instead of Series X-2 (see what I did there?) Microsoft just released the Microsoft Surface with Xbox. Just a Windows PC with a custom interface and hardware and it's the official next gen Xbox. Which is basically like current Xbox but unlocked. Wouldn't Sony be in quite the pickle!

@RadioHedgeFund 20% of a game like ffxv is still a heck of a lot of money. And Sony's cut is only 30% of their 70% , They'd have to eat a heck of a lot of losses to make up 20%, 21 % of total rev. They'd have to give up their cut entirely.

@NEStalgia @SplooshDmg while sure aggressive MS would be fine. I’m not sure how they would do that. They don’t do exclusivity deals like they used to. Yes they still do them but not in a way that digs deep. The FTC is trying to block their purchase so either way they can’t buy that much up anymore.

So what they pull Sonys MS office license.

I’d personally love but they’d never do ._.

Maybe Silent Hill 2 have a chance to come to Xbox but the rest I doubt.

@uptownsoul it’s been almost 8 years since blood borne been released. Yes Sony published the game from from software but lots of games published by other gaming companies eventually goes to other platforms. The point there trying to make is if we buy blizzard we own call of duty and if we put exclusive on it it’s no different then what Sony is doing. Also there making a point that the best selling games are PlayStation and Nintendo exclusives. So the whole point is if they buy blizzard and get one top selling game as an exclusive it is not doing any more damage then what Sony is currently doing. Also I think people should be more mad at square enix for selling exclusives on games like final fantasy. But I guess there both Japanese companies and would like to keep Sony on top when in fact most people from Japan hates the fact that ff16 is going to be a ps5 exclusive

@mousieone Well, there is that pesky little problem that Microsoft runs PSN on Azure....... It would be a shame if prices were to substantially increase due to inflation and industry related pressures, wouldn't it? 👿

@NEStalgia if I was Japanese I absolutely would never touch an American company for obvious reasons

xbox should have mentioned nioh 1&2 , final fantasy xiv, stellar blade (was announced as multiplat game for ps4, xbox one, pc; but sony steps in as publisher last year) instead of bloodborne

@Would_you_kindly What obvious reasons? American products are pretty popular in Japan, it can be something of a fashion statement there especially where a domestic alternative doesn't exist. It's Apple's second or third biggest market.

@SplooshDmg A new steam deck would be very interesting. I'd buy one if it weren't outrageously priced higher than just building a better one. It would also guarantee wolverine is EGS exclusive lol.

Sony would be in a bind. MS... They're set up to handle competing somehow, heck they already are certifying Deck games. And Nintendo would still Nintendo.

@SplooshDmg console gets it first, but idk that matters that much outside a particular group, and I don't think they'd have persued PC if they knew they'd be competing against a console box.

I'm more interested in seeing what Ms would do. There was that rumor of Ms allowing another store on Xbox. Maybe wash each other's backs, Windows store on steambox, steam on Xbox?

@SplooshDmg IMO that's a tricky one. alternate store fronts would be a broadside to the console business. Ms would lose a lot of potential money in consoles. Otoh, consoles is piddly business next to pc which they make more than enough money on by volume sales.

That's something that would break the Sonytendo model totally, you can't put the genie back in the competition bottle. On one hand it's lost money. Otoh, physical retailers already take a chunk of money, so it's not like digital competition is worse.

@Would_you_kindly

PlayStation could also be said to be an American company as it is headquartered in the US.

At the end of the day it is 2 bilion dollar corps fighting over billion dollar deals to create billion dollar growth in an ever changing gaming market that is nearing saturation. I just brought all the consoles over time so I don't have to care who stops what and when.

This is revealing a problem in this content driven industry not just this deal. By nature exclusives are no good at all for consumers. Think about it... Exclusives are so that one consumer who buys console X are able to play games that owners of console Y cannot. How is that consumer friendly?

Hopefully, at the end of the day what comes out of this is that eventually consumers are able to buy consoles based on the console capabilities and features not just because Game A is on Console Y and I really want to play game A so I end up having to buy that console.

None will make it because the Sony Squeenix acquisition will be announced once the Activision case settles.

@Para1966 The reason Xbox has become big is Exclusivity , it's make Xbox special or playstation

@EquiinoxGII yes but Sonys whole argument is it’s not fair to make call of duty exclusive. And X box is saying well why don’t they have a problem with ff being exclusive, why is it ok for Sony to buy their way to exclusive content but not Xbox.

@NEStalgia I don't want to go into it because this is a gaming site but they nuked Japan

@Gabriel94 it's a subsidiary company of Sony which is a Japanese company

@Immovablegamer6669 but call of duty wouldn't be exclusive as Microsoft has stated that.. they are asking about FF being exclusive, but as far as we know the remake exclusive period has ended. There are zero facts to support that FF has been paid out to not be on Xbox, or all square games for that fact. All we know is that they are year exclusive deals. Anything after that, it's entirely up to square on how they/where they publish their games.

I don't mind exclusives, at least you know what to expect. Buying timed exclusivity not so much, put that money into development. On the other hand, developers get a smack of money to keep it off other platforms. Good for developers, bad for consumers who have to wait while others enjoy the game on another platform.

I found a great work around for exclusivity.
I bought all three. Most, not all but most, of what people would consider “gamers”. either have all three or pc. Exclusivity is for the casual gamer who will only buy one and play it a few times a year.

@Immovablegamer6669 Yeah the entire premise of Sony complaining about exclusivity is about as laughable as it gets considering how bragging about exclusive titles has been Sony's go-to marketing strategy for about the past decade at least.

@Would_you_kindly Oh. There's not really much lingering resentments between the countries. Japanese culture being itself really helped resolve that fast. Things were mostly friendly even when troops were occupying in the 50s. Ironically, and maybe uniquely Japanese, I think the process of the war and resolution actually is what brought the US and Japan to be so close overall.

That's an over 70 year old war and for the most part Japan recognizes they were the aggressor. (And China and Korea never let them forget that...) Today Japan -US relationship is extremely friendly, politically, and Americans and American things are well liked socially. Japan's no more distant from US than France is to Germany from the actions of the same time.

The biggest problem between Japan/US has actually been complaints among locals that they don't want the US Navy bases in Osaka because the troops keep causing drunken disturbances and brawls. Japan is Japan.... Nuff said how well that goes over. A complaint the government ignores because the Navy presence is kinda critically important in protecting them from the sworn enemy they created themselves during the war that is China, and more recently Russia with whom the war never actually officially ended, it's a cease fire, not a peace, so officially Japan and Russia are still formally in WWII. Not a good pair of enemies to have these days. Plus relying on our military saves them a LOT of money they put into commerce and lower taxes vs running their own, so I'm pretty sure they won't be ending that unless we want to end it (which probably will eventually happen since it costs us a fortune.... But it's a strategic location vs China so, not soon.)

Fun fact tying all that to video games: in the late 40s/50s when US troops were occupying, a certain owner of a certain playing card company had the brass ones to go to the interim government and petition to become the exclusive producer of Western style playing cards to sell to the occupying US troops. His petition was approved and Hiroshi Yamauchi became the exclusive source of playing cards for the US troops.

Yes, the first Western Nintendo players... Exclusives no less, we're WWII soldiers!

@uptownsoul i think the difference is MS owned the rights to ":Forza": i believe it was part of the deal for publishing the games that they got to keep Forza as a IP... i could be wrong as im going off memory of a story from what a decade ago...bloodborrne on the otherhand is owned by from software if there was no exclusivity they could give the game to another publisher for the other systems.... again this is assuming my weed riddled brain remembers the details from a decade old article...

Hope the silent hill remake comes to Xbox

@uptownsoul They are giving different examples of exclusives. All 4 examples (there are plenty of others) are developed by third parties. As for Bloodborne, maybe Microsoft is privy to specifics of the deal and how it materialized that we are not?

Yes, Sony has publishing rights and owns the IP. However, anyone familiar with From Software games can see that it is their creation that was sold at some point.

I like the transparency that has arisen from this deal. Keep it coming.

@uptownsoul I agree with you...to a point. Remember that Sony, CMA, and the FTC brought up MS making Starfield and Redfall exclusive to Xbox. A scenario where MS owns not only the IP, but the developer, the publisher, and the parent company. So which gripe is more..."moronic"? I don't see it as any more flawed than the litany of misinformed, ignorant comments the CMA & FTC have already made.

Yes, seemingly less "problematic" substitutes for Bloodborne would be Nioh 1 & 2, Forespoken, and perhaps, Rise of Ronin. Including it could be a poor choice on the surface or deliberate. As I said above, Microsoft knows better than any of us how Bloodborne became exclusive. We don't know if it was presented to them as multiplatform and that later changed. We are speculating either way.

Microsoft's is simply pointing out that Sony pays external studios for Playstation exclusives, and now objects when Microsoft takes the risk on buying studios. MS never denied also having and buying exclusives. Sony is harping on Call of Duty and thus a series of examples of "paid for exclusives" are presented.

As for Forza, it is the only project for Turn10 which has been a MS studio for 20 years. Forza Horizon has been the sole project for Playground since both of their inceptions. Horizon is built on Forza tech and spinoff of Forza. Racing games outside of big publishers are typically exclusive.

Gears predates PS3 even coming to market so it a little tough to go multi-platform with a 0 installed base.

From Software titles have typically been multi-platform, as that has long become the optimal 3rd party profit model. They moved to Dark Souls from Demon's Souls to achieve it. If the next Souls-like from From is a new IP and MS has an exclusive through IP purchase & publishing, is anyone really going to say, "that doesn't count," like you are saying for Bloodborne?

The root of the problem is that Sony, the CMA, and the FTC just make poor arguments. Their initial objection (or the reasoning offer) to purchase of ABK is not a strong enough argument against it. They simply don't like it. In Sony's case, they might lose market share in the form of Xbox selling better. They are spoiled by the abnormal dominance of last gen and want it to continue.

Sony goes further and attempts to argue that CoD is an essential resource to their customers and therefore their business, like oil & gas. Microsoft could cut off user access and jack up the price. A monopoly on CoD. It is absurd. These are videogames, not telephone service & power.

For the record, I would personally want Bloodborne on PC, not so much Xbox. Release the original and a remake. I'm not holding my breath.

Well, some people have all sorts of gripes about Sony buying up timed exclusives. It is quick & relatively cheap, and they even screw over the PC. No regulators are stepping in there to protect consumers or Xbox from being "hurt".

I would say that every 3rd party game has a reasonable expectation that of being a multi-platform release. At least a PC release and a single console. Definitely in the post-360/PS3 era.

Forza Horizon doesn't fit because Playground was a 2nd party studio. They did nothing else but work on Horizon, a spin-off a 1st party title, both of which were owned and published by Microsoft.

FROM is an independent studio who has released on all platforms for many years. They have made what amounted to exclusives for PS, Xbox, and Nintendo consoles. Mainly, they make multi-plats because that is how studios make the most money.

It doesn't matter if Starfield was announced before ZeniMax was sold — it was sold. The owner can develop and release titles on whatever platforms it chooses. I do not believe that Sony commissioned the development of Bloodborne. Regardless, Microsoft's point boils down to, "Sony pays for exclusives with impunity, so they are hypocrites who should butt out of our deal."

To argue that buying individual IPs is OK and buying companies is silly.