Microsoft's Desire For Valheim On Console Led To Xbox Series X And S Versions

@KaijuKaiser I would say if Microsoft paid for exclusivity then it's the same as what Sony has been doing, but if they didn't, then it's not the same. It could just be a small team that wants to focus on one platform at a time. Really the only ones that know are the powers that be at Microsoft and Iron Gate Studios.

@KaijuKaiser I don't think Sony is evil for doing what it does. I think it's hypocritical to scream "but player choice" while, at the same time, paying for exclusivity to reduce player choice.

Just like it's hypocritical to say "I don't like exclusives" but turn around and say "exclusives are important".

Can't have it both ways.

Not exactly sure what you mean when you say "games that are out on both are only getting updates on Xbox". Examples?

I had a stab at this last night. Good fun for a bit. I could easily see myself losing hours to this one. The game feels refreshingly old school in someways.

@KaijuKaiser I mean, Psychonauts 2 did get a Resolution and stability bump specifically for PS5 in Patch 1.07 released in November 2021.

I unfortunately can't seem to find any details specifically about what resolution it is running at on PS5 via backwards compatibility post patch since no one seemed to care anymore. The only reports I see is that it got a boost. I know it was 1440p/60 on PS5 before the patch - maybe it got a full 4K/60 on PS5 post-patch?

You could argue that Microsoft didn't bother with a "native PS5 version", but things are a lot different for Xbox when it comes to "native".

Some games that are marked as "native" are simply backwards compatible games that happen to use the Gen9Aware features to improve resolution/framerate/etc.

More than likely the "native Series X|S" version is just the X1/X1X version with enhancements and then given the Series X|S tag.

Ori does this, Sea of Thieves does this, Halo MCC does this. Pretty much any Series X|S game that can also be run from an external HDD is just "last-gen" code running with enhancements.

Series X|S games can also take advantage of AutoHDR. Alan Wake Remastered uses it, too. The difference is that you can't disable it for Series X|S games like you can for other games using AutoHDR.

Basically the developer looks at the game in AutoHDR and says "You know what, this is perfect. Let's just use that for HDR instead of doing it ourselves." They, then, make it official.

I suspect that same thing happened with Psychonauts 2, which is why the Series X|S version has HDR and PS4/PS5 does not.

Sony probably has significantly more requirements to determine a "native" PS5 version that Double Fine didn't even bother doing because it didn't need to do the same thing on the Xbox side.

Of course, it could also be just "it's a Microsoft Studio, so tough luck". 🤷‍♂️

@KaijuKaiser

But I was told Sony was pure evil for doing this. Square Enix came out and said basically the same thing

Are you making equivalence between FF7R, FF16, both developed in house by a huge third-party publisher/ Squeenix and a game like Valheim developed by a small indie team 😀?

Can’t wait for the mental gymnastics

Yeah no offence mate, but you are the one who's seriously stretching it here 🙄.

@KaijuKaiser funding a port to your console is not the same as funding exclusive rights for a game on your console or funding a dev to keep it off a competitor’s.

I’m curious how you see that as the same thing.

@uptownsoul Which is why I also said:

Just like it's hypocritical to say "I don't like exclusives" but turn around and say "exclusives are important".

Which was targeted at Microsoft - specifically paraphrasing statements made by Spencer himself.

I don't actually mind console exclusives. I like having consoles that have different flavors of games. I also acknowledge that I am fortunate enough to be able to afford all the consoles.

Buuut, you can't make statements if you don't practice what you preach.

@GamingFan4Lyf
How's about this:
I hate exclusives but exclusives are good.

1st/2nd party exclusives are good to have.
Nintendo has theirs.
First party: Zelda, Mario...
Second party: Bayonetta, Xenoblade

It's the 3rd party exclusives that suck.
Spider-Man shouldn't be Playstation exclusive.
Star wars shouldn't be console exclusive (it was at one point, not sure about now)

@uptownsoul
It doesn't make sense why it is exclusive.
Sony leases (under contract) the movie rights from Marvel.
Sony owns nothing about Spider-Man, yet they somehow constantly dictate terms for TV and Games.

@uptownsoul
I've been waiting for a high quality Spider-Man game. The last good one was Spider-Man 2: Enter Electro

Spider-Man 2 and 3 (movie games were okay)

@Spider-Kev

Xenoblade is a first-party game because Nintendo owns Monolith Soft

@GamingFan4Lyf

Just like it's hypocritical to say "I don't like exclusives" but turn around and say "exclusives are important".

Which was targeted at Microsoft - specifically paraphrasing statements made by Spencer himself.

Do you have a source of Spencer saying he does not like exclusives? Are you referring to the topic discussed here?

@Tharsman Yes.

But kind of a grey area when it comes to Microsoft Game Studios.

Sure you don’t have to have an Xbox console to play games from Microsoft. But you need Microsoft something to play games it makes: Windows, DirectX, Xbox Cloud.

So in that sense, it’s gating off Nintendo and Sony from being able to play.

He says “any” device; but Switch and PlayStation aren’t included in his “any device” statements.

It’s just a touch “sleight of hand” there: a technicality.

So either release literally everywhere, or just openly admit corporate product exclusive.

I don’t care either way, just put your money where your mouth is or don’t say anything at all.

@Spider-Kev I am not too fussed about third-party exclusives, depending how it’s handled.

If it’s a situation where a company contracts the game to a third-party company and partially funds/actively assists with the game development with the third-party, then it’s cool (Bayonetta, Bloodbourne, etc.)

But to just up an pay for it to be a timed exclusive is annoying. That is just flexing money.

I mean, a third-party can always say “no” so there is responsibility on their part too. But no company is going to reject the right amount of money upfront - it has bills to pay too.

Bottom line: let the game be “yours” in more than just sliding a check to say so.

@GamingFan4Lyf the way it’s phrased im sure by “any device” he means “type of device”, since he goes on to talk about playing on a console, or on a pc, or on a phone. But that’s just guesswork and no much point on going too deep into meaning of small phrasing, my point is only that Phill has never stated that he does not like exclusives.

The way I see it, a lot of people like to attribute stuff to Phill that he never said.

@Tharsman Fair enough.

There were a few articles stating how Microsoft needs more “first-party exclusives”, but the article only talks about first-party games and not necessarily “exclusive”.

So I was wrong on that.