Microsoft and Activision Blizzard's initial court responses to the FTC Lawsuit have been published today (as we've highlighted elsewhere on Pure Xbox) and as part of this, Microsoft mentions that three upcoming ZeniMax (Bethesda) games are anticipated to become Xbox and PC exclusives at launch.
The company mentions this when explaining why Call of Duty won't become an exclusive, pointing out that these three upcoming Bethesda titles are "designed to be played primarily alone or in small groups".
"The Complaint’s reference to Microsoft’s recent acquisition of ZeniMax—a set of gaming studios acquired in 2020—has no relevance to the current transaction. After that transaction closed, ZeniMax’s first two new games were made exclusive to PlayStation for one year post-launch. Xbox anticipates that three future titles — [REDACTED] — all of which are designed to be played primarily alone or in small groups—will be exclusive to Xbox and PCs.
But consistent with its historic approach, Xbox has continued to release new updates of existing ZeniMax games such as Fallout 76 and Elder Scrolls Online on both Xbox and PlayStation, because these games are designed to be played together by broad communities of gamers on different platforms. This last set of games is the one most analogous to Call of Duty. So the ZeniMax experience cuts against the idea that Xbox would make that game exclusive."
As you can see, the actual names of the games are blanked out in the public version of the document, although we'd take a guess that they're probably Starfield, Redfall and the upcoming Indiana Jones game. There's a chance it could be Elder Scrolls 6 or something else entirely, but the Indy game seems most probable to us.
None of this is particularly surprising, of course, especially in terms of Starfield and Redfall which were already confirmed as Xbox exclusives, but that third title does leave a bit of room for debate. What do you think it is?
Tell us your thoughts on all of this down in the comments section below.
[source s3.documentcloud.org]
Comments 66
It makes TOTAL sense. Games with an 'ACTIVE ONLINE COMMUNITY' across multiple Platforms - such as Minecraft, Fallout 76, ESO and of course CoD, MS plans to continue to support those Communities of gamers to PLAY together on their 'prefered' platforms.
It doesn't make sense to split those communities, split up friends etc and potentially 'lose' that fanbase. Its not 'reducing' their choice, not stopping them from playing on their 'prefered' platform with their prefered friends etc.
Games like Starfield, Redfall, Indiana Jones etc were NEVER announced to release on PS. Just like Spider-Man or Returnal wasn't announced for Xbox - even though those were made by 'independent' Studio's who then joined Sony afterwards.
The difference however is that to play Spider-Man or Returnal on Day 1, you had NO CHOICE but to buy a |SONY Playstation or miss out on playing. If you want to play Starfield, Redfall etc, you don't need to buy any Microsoft made Hardware, you can play ANYWHERE (except PS/Switch) - its on PC and Series S/X consoles, but you can play via the Cloud on Mobile, Laptops, Tablets, Samsung TV's etc. You are NOT forced to buy an expensive piece of Hardware or 'miss out' - unlike with Sony!!
@BAMozzy Not trying to be cheeky, but what’s with the single quotation marks? I can’t tell if I’m missing something; sorry in advance if I’m misunderstanding your intent.
FWIW, I think this is going to change quickly. Microsoft and Sony partnered on azure streaming for PlayStation, you can stream PS+ now, and many PlayStation exclusives head over to PC after console launch. Would not be shocked at all if both consoles start rushing towards this future but I think Xbox wisely figured out long ago that a console-less future was the way (I also remember a lot of criticism from the Xbox community over this theory). I guess that’s expected when you have a software company (MS) and a hardware company (Sony).
@BAMozzy There is a counter arguement that exclusives take advantage of particular hardware.
Also you can buy an Xbox, switch, playstation and steam deck for £1400. Compared to our annual family holiday which is now over £3000 I know what I would prefer. Although a break away is nice. I know not everybody has the money or space but gaming is still a relatively cheap hobby. How many of us have multiple consoles? I would wager most of us in these here comments.
dates etc on first two would be nice
Starfield, Redfall, Indiana?
@BAMozzy Agreed, it does make total sense. However, playing devils advocate, I would just like to point out that the majority of the world don’t have internet connections suitable for cloud streaming. Whether it be data restrictions or actual speed and bandwidth itself.
Though of course, regulators likely won’t look into those figures as it’s not Microsoft’s fault that the world hasn’t got 1GB fibre connections galore.
Mind you, it is Microsoft’s responsibility to make sure on my 1GB fibre connection I have a decent server connection, but that’s rarely the case, but that’s just a personal complaint haha.
But yes, agreed, but just wanted to point out that cloud isn’t really an option for an incredible amount of players, but again, not Microsoft’s fault.
And again, I’d just like to make it clear that Xcloud doesn’t work well on my 1GB fibre. Stadia did, in 4K and HDR with even less lag.
So whatever Google did to make it work so well for me, I’d appreciate Microsoft doing the same before they scream from the rooftops I can “stream anywhere”.
So basically also admitting every other Activision game other than overwatch will also be xbox exclusive. All this talk about call of duty but the FTC are obviously looking past that and looking at all the games as a whole.
@UltimateOtaku91 the argument was that call Of Duty was too big to take away from playstation. I don't think the FTC or sony is really concerned about Diablo or Crash being exclusive. If there is an issue with those games being exclusive then it gives merit to the questions about spiderman or why any exclusive is allowed. The argument that sony cannot compete without call Of Duty is not a good argument. Saying sony cannot compete without diablo and crash is just flat out wrong.
Microsoft are no better than Sony where this matters, moaning about exclusive rights, but noting that they want games to be inclusive so everyone can play them, but then noting that single player games and smaller focused games are not inclusive to everyone but exclusive to Xbox. The more and more this story opens up, the more they are releasing colliding statements of intent. Christ... I know what. Let's cut this crap from both sides of the pond and ban any outright sale purchases unless deemed necessary (i.e saving a company from folding)
@uptownsoul not really. Microsoft are just pointing out that Sony are buying IPs from 3rd party studios they don't own 100%
@EvenStephen7 Its just my way of formatting text instead of trying to remember how to italicise, bold etc on EVERY different Forum I use. I use the apostrophes to highlight words, phrases etc where I would normally be using Italics and often use ALL CAPS where I would normally use Bold. I am NOT quoting anyone so not using Quotation marks at all - they are Apostrophes (normally used to show an omitted letter It's instead of It is, I'm instead of I am or to signify possession, belong to)
@themcnoisy I agree that if you are only focussing on 1 Hardware spec, you can make the game exactly to those specs. You can change your plans, your 'vision' etc to 'fit' the container - for example, if you 'planned' an area with long draw distances and find its too much for that hardware, you 'change' the environment to reduce the GPU load. On multi-platform games, you 'keep' that view because it works on High End, fits their 'vision' and try and 'optimise' for the lower end Hardware, limit their 'draw' distance with settings etc. But then PC games have to cover a much wider range of Hardware and PC/Xbox tends to share the same OS and API's
I do have both a PS5 and Series X but I am an Adult with my own income to decide how I want to spend it. However, as a Parent with numerous Kids, each wanting their own TV and Games system in their room, as well as the MANY countries in the world where average incomes are significantly lower Brazil, India, China, Africa etc, they can't afford 'multiple' consoles.
My Ex-Wife would NEVER give up an Annual Holiday so I could buy multiple Consoles...
@uptownsoul Turning down because not believe could devote enough attention to make game best it can be versus turning it down to then be console exclusive by another company are indeed, very much 2 different things.
I'm happy that more single player games are going to be exclusive to Xbox. The console needs those.
@uptownsoul it's not really stupid Microsoft using Bloodborne. As it's the same as Starfield, Redfall & Elder Scrolls 6 as yes they were announced but to no platforms till Microsoft purchased them. Same could have happened to Bloodborne before Sony purchased the IP.
@TheElectroFunky I do agree that Internet/Bandwidth is not 'great' in every part of the world but most governments have some policy to bring Broadband quality to even the remotest areas of their territories.
The difference is that as games get more and more complex, you'll need more and more hardware resources to play - hence Last gen consoles and older hardware gets left behind. With Streaming, you only need to reach a certain 'bandwidth' because the game only needs enough bandwidth to send each frame at a 'fixed' resolution and 'fixed' frame-rate. 1080/60 requires the 'same' bandwidth regardless of the game, regardless of the hardware needed to run at 1080/60. That's why 'Last Gen' Xbox owners and Mobile gamers can play games like MSFS or Starfield despite that hardware not having the hardware to run it Locally.
You could have servers running games with FULL RT Path Tracing, the most incredible AI and Physics - far beyond what any 'local' hardware built in their 'millions' could ever hope to offer, Environments far bigger than could be stored on ANY Local storage - and all you need is 20Mbps download speed to play on ANY hardware at 1080/60...
In the UK, there is a Government Policy to bring High Speed Internet at least 1gigabit per second to minimum of 85% of UK residents by 2025 and completely nationwide (at least 99% of Premises) by 2030 which would take us to the 'end' of the Current Gen. Most gamers have a Smart Phone and/or use some 'internet' connected device for gaming, for watching TV/Movies etc now.
Whilst the Cloud is still in its infancy and companies are not in control of that 'infrastructure', that infrastructure though is being improved and built up. In another 5yrs, its possible that 'more' of the world will have adequate bandwidth to stream and likely to improve.
Its almost impossible to enjoy gaming without a 'decent' internet connection to patch games, purchase games, play some games etc etc so I doubt many that currently game on Playstation or Xbox couldn't game via the Cloud if they 'wanted'. I do agree that it's not 'competing' with PS5/Series X in terms of visual quality and may even have an imperceptible Latency cost, but considering you can play for a 'small' monthly fee instead of spending $600+ on Hardware, Game and PS+/Gold to access Online components, its much more affordable for MANY.
@uptownsoul I honestly just wish Disney would pony up the dough to buy back the entirety of the Spider-Man. The whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.
I am sure Disney will eventually grow tired of "bending the knee" to Sony every time it wants Spider-Man included in MCU stuff.
As far video games are concerned, Sony is choosing to keep Spider-Man exclusive to its platform. It could very well develop a game that includes Xbox if it wants to. But it won't because...it draws people to buy PlayStation.
So as bitter as one can be about the Bethesda deal, Microsoft is well in its right to keep games for itself to draw people to Xbox.
Lol its so over for Sony... three exclusive titles. Past Xbox would never have done this. This indicates a new Xbox strategy. People who think MS don't care about console or the Xbox brand are fooling themselves. They are ALL IN and its war. Sorry PS fans, MS wants you to sub to GP!
@BAMozzy It is funny that the Cloud version of Control on Switch actually has more RT bells and whistles than the PS5/Series X versions.
Just reiterates your point that Cloud streaming can be beneficial if the bandwidth is there.
I dont know about Fallout 76, but as of 2021, Elder Scrolls Online does not support cross play of any kind. Xbox players are on a silo, PlayStation players are on another silo, and PC players are on yet another silo.
@GamingFan4Lyf Sony will never be willing to sell Spider-Man. It doesn’t matter how much Disney wants to pay, it’s still the most lucrative Marvel IP. Wish they never gave Disney the cartoon rights honestly…it cost us the best Spidey cartoon.
But yeah, I would imagine it’s referring to Starfield, Redfall, and Indiana Jones.
Dont get me wrong this is completely relevant and needs to be an article. I too am curious by the third title.
But to put my input in, maybe its my age but I keep thinking the drama over this is getting so old. Capitalism has taken over gaming far too much so much so I think the enjoyment of just gaming gets forgotten. Lol.
As for my theory on the third title. Mine is one not mentioned, the idea of being enjoyed by single players or small groups is telling as this lacked a massive multiplayer community, I would guess the next Wolfenstein as the third title.
@Clankylad
Its the same license holder as Spider-Man, and that is PlayStation exclusive, not multi-platform.
@Tharsman same license holder but Microsoft havent (or at least not publically) bought any rights to the Indy IP for use so may still be Disney's call at this point.
@UltimateOtaku91
Yes, because none of those games are dimmed to be "tentpole" games that could drastically disrupt the industry.
Existing service games will continue (Overwatch, Diablo 4) but even if ABK under MS was to create a brand new IP that managed to achieve CoD/Fortnite/Apex status, it would be a new thing and start from the ground up.
Yes, Diablo 5 might be Xbox/PC exclusive, but also not likely to launch until 2033, if not later. No, i never expect an actual Overwatch 3, if anything, sooner or later I expect them calling Overwatch 2 "Overwatch 2.0" so they can simply pretend its a version number, not a sequel.
But yes, expect everything other than CoD to be XBox/PC only.
@Jaxx420 not sure what you mean by "bought", since you could mean multiple things. Sony does not "own" Spider-Man IP, they only "own" the rights to make movies, and have a licensing agreement to publish Spider-Man video games, but no exclusive usage of Spider-Man for video games.
Similarly, Bethesda signed a licensing agreement with Disney for Indy video games, and unless the contract mandated multi-platform release, they can release it on whatever platform they chose.
@themcnoisy
Gaming in incredibly expensive in some parts of the world.
A PS5 where I live costs 7 months of minimum wage. Then if you want to buy a game, that's another month.
@uptownsoul sounds like to me Sony has plenty of cash to lock in exclusives and stay very competitive in the console race for years to come. They won’t miss some of the MS funded exclusives and still have COD, Minecraft, Overwatch and others. Seems pretty fair and competitive. Just what us gamers should want, both competing for our dollar and attention.
@uptownsoul They were? Well with that new piece of information I'm have change my stance.
But Sony still hypocrites.
@Clankylad The License Holder, being Disney now, has already stated that they are 'open' for Developers to make games with their IP's and will allow them to 'release' on their Platform choice(s).
Star Wars games, for example, may be made by various devs, not just EA (who made Jedi: Fallen Order and Battlefront) but also there is several other SW games in development from an 'exclusive' PS remake of KoToR to Switch Exclusive, Star Wars: Hunters (made by Zynga) and also Quantic Dreams 'Eclipse' and Ubisofts open world game.
Its entirely possible that they 'agreed' to let Todd Howards Indiana Jones idea go into 'production' with NO stipulations on Hardware platforms. If it is 'exclusive' to Xbox (as far as native release on consoles anyway), its still going to be on PC day 1 and on Game Pass Cloud day 1 so you can play ANYWHERE, unlike Spider-Man, Wolverine etc which can ONLY be played on Playstation day 1.
Being exclusive to the Xbox 'ecosystem' doesn't mean its 'limiting' the reach and/or limiting the 'choice' of gamers to access these titles like it does with exclusive to Sony's Ecosystem which is 'just' the Console. Exclusive to Xbox means that EVERY gamer has a 'choice' to play on a wide variety of platforms and from very 'low' costs too. Exclusive to Sony means Exclusive to PS5 - no 'choice', its either buy a Sony made Platform, sub to Sony's service (if it has online components) and must 'buy' the game to play. If I didn't have a Series X for example, when Starfield releases, I could play Day 1 on my Samsung Smart Phone, my 'old' HP tablet type laptop, my current ASUS 3080ti Laptop etc for just a 'small' monthly fee - not have to find $600+ to play it...
They are never going to make everybody happy. Make certain games multiplat, some people are unhappy. Make certain games exclusive, others are unhappy. I know it sucks when a game you want to play doesn’t come to the platform of your choice. Sometimes it doesn’t workout like that. It has happened to all of us.
I think most of us were prepared for Starfield and Redfall to be exclusive. Still not sure if Indiana Jones will be exclusive yet. I am curious to see the game though.
This whole discussion is stupid. MS has no exclusives. They ship every game on both PC and XB. And 90% of their games are on Steam as well. Plus, they have cloud streaming. There are many choices to play XB games even if you don't own an XB. People may choose not to use those platforms, but that is not Microsoft's issue.
All this talk would seem like Sony has NOTHING of its own to offer their Consumers. That Sony's success is purely down to multi-platform releases and that their own software is NOT good enough, NOT strong enough to compete with MS or Nintendo - especially after they would lose the 'extra' content in CoD they pay to keep off PC/Xbox.
Nintendo have been incredibly successful with Switch, with predominantly their own Software and without CoD. Sony have 'dominated' the Game of the Year awards for years - if not outright winning it, they always have at least 1 nominee.
People buy Playstation because of their 'Exclusives', games like Uncharted, Last of Us, R&C, Ghost of Tsushima, Horizon, God of War, Gran Turismo etc and will continue buying Playstation to play Sony's award winning games. Even if they feel they have to move to Xbox to play CoD via Game Pass to 'save' buying it at $70 day 1, they'll still want a PS to play Spider-Man 2, Wolverine and whatever games those Sony studios make next because they'll only be playable on Playstation. They may not even 'move' to Xbox because they could play CoD on their Mobile, Tablet, Laptop/PC, Smart TV, Switch etc or just buy the game on PS because they 'prefer' the controller, their friends are on PS etc and would prefer to 'own' their game rather than pay to a Sub service - especially if they are interested in buying Cosmetics, Season Passes etc...
Point is, the ONLY thing Sony will 'lose' is their ability to pay to keep some content away from EVERY other gamer in CoD so people are not 'forced' to buy a Playstation to get the complete CoD package. That just means that Xbox/PC gamers are not screwed over, that Nintendo gamers are not left out. Sony may lose sales because people have their freedom to choose what Platform suits them 'best', not have to pick a specific Platform or 'miss out' on something...
@uptownsoul i agree 100% and thankfully RedFall and Starfield aren’t an established IP yet, so they can bolster MS’s exclusive offerings. COD and Diablo and Overwatch continue on on PS and other platforms.
I have XSX and PS5, and while I prefer the Xbox team's approach in many ways, I really hope the FTC brings the hammer down on the merger. Monopolies are never good for consumers, or the employees that work for these mega corporations. I do think it's fine to keep some of the Bethesda exclusive, however, just because the Xbox hasn't been very competitive as far as exclusives for a couple generations now.
@Lup 7 months? Jeez. I would move.
@Tharsman I think even if ESO isn't cross play it still relies on the larger community to support future development. If it was just xbox players, it wouldn't get nearly the same amount of content as we've seen it get. Especially in recent years it seems like there's always a massive new expansion in the works.
@CunningPig my point was that the statement claimed these players play together, when they (as far as I know) don't. Curious if either that changed, or they are planning to change it.
@GuyProsciutto being the 3rd in size in revenue after this ABK merger is far from a monopoly. They are 4th now, 3rd after the deal and Sony and Tencent are way higher. There won’t be no monopoly’s in gaming cause Nintendo isn’t going anywhere and neither is Sony.
@Tharsman Are you sure there's no crossplay? I know the ACCOUNTS are locked to the respective platforms and you can't change them to a different one, but are they genuinely actually playing on platform isolated servers? I though the servers were universal but divided by region.
@BAMozzy The quotes on words never seem like italics to me, it always seems more of a sarcastic irony.
"Sure this 'food' is totally 'safe', you don't need to know where it came from, it's a trade secret, but you can rest assured that it was 'farmed' through proven 'methods.' It's 100% real 'meat' "
@UltimateOtaku91 Not really, they're not. EU already said they weren't concerned about Bethesda titles because they're not irreplaceable content like CoD. The same would be true with Activision. And for Sony's part, the only one raising competitive objectives, they're the ones that talked only about CoD, CoD, CoD, and framed everything around that. Because that's the only one they care at all about. By revenue CoD represents the top 5 percentile of PS revenue. The rest of ABK titles combined accounts for little of consequence. If Sony doesn't care about Spryo, regulators don't care about Spyro.
Well i can cross off bethesda games from my list of to play games atleast
@NEStalgia I am sure it was so a few years ago, maybe in part because of it launching way before crossplay became a thing between consoles, but I did google it up to be sure and at least as of 2021 (most recent article I saw on the topic) there was no cross play still.
@NEStalgia how you read it is up to you, I can't change that. However, the example you used is a LOT more expressive because of the words you chose to emphasise than it would have been without certain 'words' being enclosed by apostrophe's.
That's why I use them...
@Tharsman I don't know, I guess it's possible, and probably what MS would want if ESO was launching in 2022. I don't know if the statement is incorrect anyway though. They are played together, by communities on different platforms. There is a community on xbox, and on playstation, and in each of those communities people play together.
I think it might come off as vaguely misleading because it is beating around the bush, not getting to the fact that it's financial motivation, not concern for the gaming community, that motivates MS to maintain the games as multiplat. It sounds good, for their arguments about bringing gaming to everyone, to say that they're multiplat because they're designed to be played together by big communities, but the real reason is because it's a much larger steady source of revenue. For future development of the live service, but also to subsidize development of the single player projects that can draw people into the xbox ecosystem as exclusives.
@CunningPig
I honestly don't think that's true either. The truth is: these games are out there, and have an active audience. Shutting them down will result in a horrible backlash and negative karma.
Halting development of expansion packs for the PlayStation versions of these games would be as bad as shutting them down, so also not an option they want to consider.
But should they make a brand new multiplayer game, expect it to be exclusive to XBox and PC. We dont even have to hold our breath to find out if that is true, Redfall is just that, a multiplayer focused game that is going to be XBox/PC exclusive.
So their real message is they wont halt development and updates for games like Diablo 4, Overwatch, Warzone and... are there any other service games in the ABK bucket? I guess Crash Team Rumble.
If Indiana Jones is one of them anyone that mentions Spiderman again is just a straight up hypocrite lol
It’s funny how this debate always falls into Sony vs Microsoft.
No-one is calling out for Nintendo to release Breath of the wild on PC, or saying Mario should be allowed on cloud streaming etc.
It’s such a redundant argument. Why shouldn’t people have exclusive games if they pay for the right to have them? Who are you to stop them?
@Moonglow
Microsoft is bigger then Sony now with studios and after Activision-Blizzard they are twice as big as Sony.
Only cause they earn less money is not making them smaller.
@GamingFan4Lyf I wish Disney would buy the rights back as well...
But Spider-Man is so ingrained in Sony's identity as a company especially their movie studio. That Disney would probably have to buy Sony entirely to get Spider-Man fully back.
@BAMozzy Here in the Netherlands we have had fiberglass for almost 7 years i don't know the speed in other countries .
What would be the reaction to Sony purchasing Rockstar from Take Two or all of Take Two? And then on release putting GTA 6 on PS Extra. On the other hand could those be the next targets for MS?
Happy holidays to all.
@Floki Disney never had the rights to spider-man marvel sold the movie rights way before Disney bought them
@NoCode23 Sony couldn't afford rockstar or take two so it's a would never happen scenario but this Activision will set a precedent in the gaming industry once the deal is done Sony , Nintendo , tencent , embracer etc should be allowed to buy every publisher they can afford / want / are willing to sell & if there's any scrutiny they can just point to the Activision buyout & say Microsoft was allowed to spend 70 billion buying one of the biggest publishers in the industry right after buying zenimax which was the largest acquisition in gaming history before Activision
@Would_you_kindly Well... Duh. But you're not gonna say "I wish marvel would buy back the rights." It not ultimately their decision, or wallet. It's Disney that would be buying back the right for marvel.
As an owner of both xbox and ps5 the only game thats got me hyped is wolverine
@Neverwild Bigger isn't just the number of studio's a company owns - and yes, they do 'currently' have more 'studio's' than Sony, but that only happened in 2021 when the Zenimax deal concluded. If you go back to before E3 2018, Xbox only owned 5 studios - 1 of which made Minecraft - a multi-platform title.
You had 343, Coalition, Rare and Turn 10 - Playground joined in 2018 and Undead Labs, both known for making 'MS' exclusives anyway.
In terms of console install base, they are nowhere near as big as Nintendo or Sony. That gives both those companies an advantage in terms of revenue. Its not just their own games they get revenue for, but for every game sold. If you only have 20m customers, you aren't going to sell more games than a Console with 50m customers. If it sells to just 10% of the gamers on each, that's 2m vs 5m sales - a LOT more revenue for the 'bigger' company.
In terms of 'size', MS may seem 'bigger' than Sony because it has 'more' Studio's 'now', but are behind Sony and Nintendo in terms of Gaming Revenue because they don't sell anywhere near as many Consoles and therefore can't generate the 'same' income - even from 1st Party games - because they have a 'larger' community to sell to.
Currently, MS has 16% of the Console gamers, Sony 34%% (double) and Nintendo has 50% with the Switch. In terms of Exclusives, Sony has 5x as many as Xbox, Nintendo has 4x as many. Of all exclusives on consoles, only 10% are on Xbox with 50% on Playstation.
So not only are they 'smaller' in terms of Revenue, they are smaller in terms of Console install base and in terms of Exclusives to offer and buying A/B would indeed make them 'more' competitive to 'grow' in these areas - areas that they are much 'smaller' than their competitors.
You have to 'invest' in Studio's to build up your own Library of 'exclusives' to compete with the competition. People aren't going to leave PS to have access to 'fewer' games, to miss out on Sony's award winning first party releases so MS has to invest in Quantity and demonstrate it can compete on Quality.
In time, its 'hoped' these acquisitions will 'pay off' for MS, that will be able to gain more of a share of the Console market and compete on sales revenue too to become 'bigger' in the Gaming Sector.
I'm glad they are exclusive...since Capcom and Sony like to play that card all the time...and this whole FTC thing is bullcrap. Sony has more exclusives by far!! So they're are calling the kettle, black.
@Tharsman you're right, ESO isn't cross platform. It's cross gen, though.
@Greenbasilisk more exclusives that are either made by first party studios or they approached a studio to make a game for THEM. Not just buying up major publishers then making them exclusive. Big difference
@Floki Sony only own the movie rights to Spider-Man and they have for over 2 decades. Why do you think all the old Spider-Man games were multi-platform until Marvel offered a deal to Microsoft who said no and Sony said yes and that wasn’t even for Spider-Man it was any character they chose it was Insomniac who chose to make a Spider-Man game when Sony approached them. The game did so well Marvel offered Sony a deal for further characters hence the Wolverine game
@Shaun2018098 Yes. I already know this. This is absolute basic comic book history. Nothing you're saying is new information.
@Shaun2018098 Insomniac, Bungie, Naughty Dog ..that's just the ones I can think of off the top of my head that Sony recently acquired. Also people in Japan won't even touch or buy an Xbox...like it's an embargo. ..and these are 2 American companies so Japan and Europe can back off!!
@Greenbasilisk in 29 years Sony have only purchased 2 Publishers Psygnosis and Bungie and Bungie are remaining independent ergo their titles will be multi-platform. Insomniac and Naughty dog were independent studios that Sony had a long history of having them make games for them before purchasing them. Hell in the 23 years before Sony bought them Insomniac had only released 3 games on Xbox consoles and Naughty Dog never since Sony bought them the year the first Xbox console was released
Right. So now you're just making stuff up. And I guess you think this is a hostile take over?
@gogolpoe past Xbox would never have exclusives? What are you talking about?
@uptownsoul Well....not too far from truth. But Sony really taking the lead though.
@Greenbasilisk Making stuff up ? Okay Sony purchased Naughty Dog having worked with them since 1996 in 2001 original Xbox was released in that same year so obviously no games were ever released on Xbox by them. Insomniac were founded in 1994. Between 1994 and Sony purchasing them in 2019 they released Fuse in 2013, Sunset Overdrive in 2014 and Song of the deep in 2016 on Xbox that was it no other game they developed was available on Xbox. And Bungie has already been confirmed to be remaining independent with games releasing on all platforms.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...