Xbox Boss Phil Spencer Discusses The Importance Of Platform Exclusives

I don't understand how there can be any uproar when the big 3 console platforms all have exclusives of their own.

Sony are keeping Spider-man out of the hands of people who don't own a Playstation and are paying for timed exclusives.

It's unreasonable to expect Microsoft to put Starfield - arguably one of the biggest games of the year on Playstation when they spent Billions acquiring the developers who made it.

I honestly feel like they should adopt a less is more approach at the moment. There's absolutely no need to justify Starfield being exclusive and it feels like the more they try to explain and justify it the more confusing and contradictory the message comes across.

The idea that they need to justify and apologise about getting exclusives in anyway silly. The biggest problem and challenge with Xbox ever since 2013 has been existence of fewer exclusives compared to PS and they are addressing it (not always with success but still).

I mean, in other examples, Sony is also keeping Destiny Multiplatform. I believe whatever decision that Xbox makes, Sony would have done the same if they were in their place.

Beats around the bush a lot ole Phil. Just give it straight "Starfield is exclusive to Xbox, like Spider-man is exclusive to PlayStation."

@ActionPanther i think the bigger uproar was for the longest time phil was saying they wouldnt be exclusive, then suddenly everything changed from what he was saying. Exclusives are business but xbox’s we r the good guy to everyone speeches are annoying as hell knowing everything they say is BS. Be truthful upfront

@Kevw2006 I'm not sure what you mean about confusing or reason for Starfield exclusivity.

The reason is simple: consoles need exclusives to differentiate/market/justify the sales.

Starfield is exclusive because they own it.

I also would say it's very sensible to expect a Fallout 5, Wolfenstein 3, Evil Within 3, or Elder Scrolls 6, to be Xbox exclusive.

The funny thing about Starfield is that Sony was negotiating exclusivity for it right up until Bethesda was purchased. It probably would have been playstation exclusive for at least a year.

Anyone who expects Starfield to be multiplat are just being salty. I’m not the biggest fan of uncle Phil but have to agree with him here.

@Kaloudz it’s well known that Sony were trying to buy exclusivity for StarField before the acquisition. So it may not have been multiplat, at least for a year.

@ActionPanther

I don't understand how there can be any uproar when the big 3 console platforms all have exclusives of their own.

As someone that spent all of last gen on PS4 camp, I can tell you PS users are just not used to being deprived of third party content, and that has grown almost to some form of entitlement.

@Kaloudz

Starfield would more than likely have been multiplat if MS didn't buy them.

Well, we know Sony was trying to negotiate an exclusivity deal, and who knows how long they would had locked the game for. They seem to be pushing for ridiculous 2 year contracts (if not lifetime) on big triple-A titles.

@ActionPanther the difference is that philnocio & other Xbox execs like to preach about how they want all gamers to play their games but then making them exclusive to Xbox & pc this very interview he's saying they've never taken a Bethesda game from playstation since they've owned them (it's only been 2 years lol) & we know full well that's a bare faced lie , sure they haven't taken existing franchises (yet) but we know starfield & redfall & probably even hifi rush would've released on playstation if Microsoft didn't buy them , no one's saying you can't have exclusives just don't be a hypocrite & a liar about it

The worst part about the 10 year call of duty deal is that even though it is clear why xbox will keep it multiplat even beyond 10 years is that it will continue to be a story throughout the entire deal(8,7,6 more years of exclusivity. What does this mean for Sony, etc.)

Their approach to exclusives makes sense to me but it seems like every interview from here on out will have a question about it and the response will get multiple stories every time.

@Would_you_kindly he’s not wrong though. They haven’t ‘taken them away’ because they’ve never been on any other system.

Taking them away would be pulling ESO, 76 and others off PlayStation, which they haven’t done.

@Kaloudz Because they have a god given right to have exclusives and it’s heresy for Xbox to have their own.

@Kaloudz as I mentioned PlayStation users have developed an entitlement to all third party games, and they will spit fire if they are locked out of anything. Many of them are still are not accepting that Bethesda is now a first party developer.

@Fenbops they wouldn't be able to pull games from other consoles that have already released or they'd have to give refunds , same with destiny 2 if Sony pulled that from Xbox they'd have to give refunds to everyone that bought expansions on Xbox

@Tharsman I wasn't referring to Starfield specifically, as I said in my earlier comment there's no need to justify its exclusivity and I understand and appreciate the reasons for it. The part I find confusing is comments like "so when we're launching new games [on Xbox, PC and cloud]...some of those won't be available on other competitive platforms" and "so we'll continue to support the communities of games...". This could lead some people to believe that the likes of The Elder Scroll, Fallout, or other IP's that have previously released on other platforms may still come to those platforms and only completely new IP's, such as Starfield, are exclusive.

@Would_you_kindly that’s one of the reasons yeah but also they’re established games making money so why would they pull them away. Doesn’t change the fact that they said they wouldn’t take games away and they haven’t. You can’t say they’ve taken a game like Starfield away from a system when it didn’t release on it in the first place.

You need exclusives to self consoles and/or game pass whatever one you prefer.
Microsoft want game pass on every device as simple as that and of course want to sell more game pass.
So to do that your product has to have something that other products don’t. Exclusive games, being the main thing usually.
That is how Sony and Nintendo sell their hardware, simple. Instead of just hardware all Microsoft are doing is trying to sell game pass a subscription service.

Simple, give a very good reason to subscribe and people will. Some advertising would help and general public awareness and momentum as well.

@Rmg0731 @Would_you_kindly I agree with both of your points about not being upfront about Starfield being exclusive from the beginning but after several Bethesda games being exclusive to Sony for a year and things being a little different now in the console sales race, it would make absolutely no sense for Microsoft to let Starfield go multiplatform when it's potentially the biggest game of the year.

Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are all dishonest by nature. They hide truths about their products because they want to drum up excitement.

@Kevw2006 How would you phrase "we will patch any existing title, and we will release all DLC, and we will meet any contractual obligations (some of them likely still secret)" in as few words as possible?

I think in this interview Phil stated it in more words than he has ever before:

we'll continue to support the communities of games... Elder Scrolls Online has been doing their annual drops and content drops, those have been on PlayStation...we've updated Fallout 76 on all the platforms at the same time...

No, he is not talking about fans of an IP, he is talking about specific titles. Skyrim also got its anniversary update/DLC on all platforms despite by that point the deal having closed.

At the end of the day, whatever words he uses will be nitpicked so they can later call him a hypocrite or a liar, but he is talking about patches, DLC, and refusal to delist the titles.

Whenever they decide to commit to bring sequels to other platforms, they will be clear about it, as they have been with Minecraft and their intents for CoD.

@Would_you_kindly if Sony let's Insomniac release Sunset Overdrive 2 on Xbox you will have a point. & If Sony hadn't payed Square Enix we'd have probably have enjoyed Final Fantasy 14, 7 remake, & would be getting excited for 16 in June. At least Sony fans know where they stand with Starfield as Sony gags publishers from telling us even if we are gonna get a game. Look at the whole uproar from FF 16 PC fans who were told if you want to play buy a PS5.

I have all 3 consoles. I want exclusives on Xbox — something that I can't play anywhere else, and that hopefully takes advantage of the system. Honestly, that's been my biggest gripe with the Series gen so far; a lack of AAA games that both push my Series X and make me happy that I invested in one on top of my PS5 and Switch.

That said, I also remember when Phil Spencer said that exclusives are "counter to what gaming is about.” Honestly, I have never trusted the guy more than Jim Ryan or anyone else --- they're all corporate suits, doing their job to make as much money as possible — but I think he's maybe a little too candid and these statements and back-peddling can result in both confusion and a bit of hostility.

Regardless, 2.5 years later I'm really eager for some AAA exclusives that are bangers, make me feel more invested in my Xbox, and show me what my Series X is really capable of. Very excited.

@EvenStephen7 That quote from Phil Spencer on exclsuives is extremely out of context. Here is the full quote:

As a player you are the centre of our strategy," Spencer concludes. "Our device is not the centre of our strategy, our game is not the centre of the strategy. We want to enable you to play the games you want to play, with the friends you want to play with, on any device. On TV, the Xbox console is going to be the best way to play console games. Xbox Series X is the most powerful console out there and it will have absolutely the best versions of our console games. But that's not to exclude other people from being able to play.

Sorry, I am a bit soapboxy with this one. Gaming is about entertainment and community and diversion and learning new stories and new perspectives, and I find it completely counter to what gaming is about to say that part of that is to lock people away from being able to experience those games. Or to force someone to buy my specific device on the day that I want them to go buy it, in order to partake in what gaming is about.

source

Emphasis mine. With context, you can see he is talking about games being entirely exclusive to a single device, and is coming from their vision of "play on xbox, pc, or mobile". He was not against console exclusives, but against games that only lanch on one device.

It's not an inconsistent view for him, he has repeated the "single piece of plastic" mindset plenty of times in the past, and has praised Sony for embracing the release of their games on PC.

I understand if there are other reasons some distrust Phil, but in this specific point, its articles with out of context quotes that should be distrusted.

@Kaloudz Starfield would have most definitely come to PlayStation…and more than likely been timed exclusive for a year like we’ve so far seen with all the other Bethesda games that were in development for both platforms. And had that been the case not one media outlet faking concern over Xbox making Bethesda games exclusive would have raised an eyebrow - just like they didn’t with the previous year long timed exclusivity’s. Just like they don’t with EVERY high profile AAA 3rd party game that sony has marketing to that either comes with a minimum of years exclusivity, or exclusive content.

The trouble is Phil Spencer himself - he’s a talking head. And often his messaging is confusing…setting himself up with ‘gaming for everyone’ etc. which just feeds outrage on hypocrisy on the rare occasions they do actually support their own player base with exclusive content - adding actual value to the console

@Sebatrox that's dependent on your internet connection mines not great so cloud gamings a no go for me

@Would_you_kindly Play it on Xbox or PC then

If those aren't good options for you, tough s***, it's more options than Sony gives.

@Tharsman That's fair, and I appreciate the context. You're right, I still have other reasons to distrust him regarding past statements (though to be fair to him, I feel the same about his contemporaries at the other companies too, lol), but that perspective may have led me to not dig a little deeper on that. In further context, I get what he's saying, and appreciate the polite correction (a rarity on these forums and on the internet itself!).

There is this strange vibe across the gaming press that a title exclusive to Xbox platforms is some affront to the integrity of the industry and somehow toxic for the gaming consumer but that same strange perspective is somehow not present when discussing the numerous examples of Sony gatekeeping content of cross-platform games and paying for all sorts of exclusivity deals. And no one bats an eye at Nintendo’s massive IPs that are exclusive to their platforms, only occasionally popping up in some half-baked iOS and Android release (hi, Mario Run). Don’t get me wrong. My Switch has provided me with far more gameplay time than my PS4, PS5, XboxOne, and Series X combined. Not hating on Nintendo for how they play the game. But that’s the point. I feel like Microsoft is somehow vilified for even remotely hinting at playing the same game that Sony and Nintendo do.

@Sakisa I don't want to play it I'm not interested in it lol & how's it more options than Sony gives , ff7 remake can played on playstation or pc yet people are constantly complaining about that one lol

@Tharsman Funnily enough how you worded it was a lot clearer and didn't use that many words either. I agree that the comment about supporting existing communities etc is specifically talking about already existing games receiving update and dlc. However, in this comment "Our competitors have a lot of exclusive games, so when we're launching new games [on Xbox, PC and cloud]...some of those won't be available on other competitive platforms." he is specifically referring to future games and he says that SOME won't be available on future platforms, implying that there are some that may. I think he is being pretty smart though in keeping their cards close to their chest as they may well have intentions of releasing games like Fallout or Elder Scrolls on other platforms but it would be in their best interests for that to not be available until absolutely need to reveal it as if you're looking to but a new console and say Fallout is a decider for you, you're far more likely to opt for the platform where you KNOW it will be available rather than one where it MAY be available.

@Kevw2006 I honestly think that is a catch to avoid going into deals that are under NDA, although doubtful, there might still be some eternally delayed project within ZeniMax that is contractually obligated to be on PlayStation (hell, or Switch) and that is even more likely on ABK where the deal has not even been approved yet and some marketing or platform exclusivity deal might already be in place.

An example of something that came post-acquisition was Quate Remastered. I doubt there was any deal forcing them to put it on PlayStation, but it was already on the final stretch and they likely decided to go for it.

Games like Elder Scrolls 6 and Starfield were so far away that its very unlikely they had even started doing console builds. As the Hi-Fi Rush stated, when the acquisition news came down, all development was purely being done on PC. Console ports start being implemented in the last year of development.

Starfield was NEVER announced as 'releasing' on Playstation at all and whilst it may have been revealed 'before' the Acquisition, they 'never' stipulated the platform(s) they were going to release on. As such, nothing has been 'taken' away from Sony - it may only have been a PC game for example.

Brand New 'IP's', new 'separate' entries in an IP (especially if it isn't a 'direct' continuation of a Story) etc would 'not' be taken away from a Platform they were 'never' announced for. Those 'Online' games (ESO, Fallout 76, even Minecraft) have an active online community spread across 'multiple' platforms and therefore they are continuing to fully support every 'gamer' in that Community in exactly the same way - all get content day/date...

As time goes on, Its MS that will 'greenlight' and fund ANY new Game developed by these Studio's - they 'own' the IP's, the Studio's etc so it makes sense to decide whether the game would be 'beneficial' to release on 'other' platforms or more beneficial to use that IP to draw people into their 'own' ecosystem.

Games like CoD have an ACTIVE online Community across multiple platforms - like Minecraft, ESO, F76 etc so it makes sense to 'keep' supporting and/or 'grow' that community on as many platforms as possible. A 'new' Fallout set in a 'new' location, with a 'new' character and 'new' story has NO online Community so no 'obligation' to release on their rival platforms - even though you can argue there is a 'Fallout' fanbase on PS that could 'miss' out.

I think that was made 'clear' at the Bethesda round table. Every game will be considered on a 'Game by Game' basis and it seems those with 'active' and/or potential to 'grow' an Online community (like Minecraft, Minecraft Dungeons & Legends) are 'more likely' to release on their Rivals - like Sony intends to 'keep' Destiny a 'multi-platform' community and keep that 'community' together.

It really doesn't make sense to take CoD from PS when they want to 'grow' the Community of CoD gamers, make it 'more' affordable and more widely available on more platforms - even if you can't afford 'Premium' Hardware, you can still 'play'.

Cloud/Streaming may not be a 'Premium' platform, limited Library, limited PQ/Performance etc, but its still offering gamers the chance to play 'Premium' Games developed for Premium Hardware at a 'fraction' of the Cost. You could play CoD comfortably at 1080/60 on your Samsung TV Game Pass app for just $10 a month - $250 would get a Series S to improve PQ/Performance and Library size, $500 would get a 'Premium' gaming experience at upto 4k (PS5 or Series X) and 'more' could buy you the 'best' PQ, Library and Performance on a Gaming PC.

Cloud isn't meant to 'compete' with Series S/X or PS5 - they are 'premium' hardware models to offer 'Premium' gaming experiences at a 'Cost', Cloud can bring those 'Premium' games, albeit at 'reduced' PQ and/or lack 'Premium' options (like 120fps) but its only $10 a month on any 'compatible' hardware - inc last gen consoles. An XB1S customer doesn't 'need' to buy a Series S/X to play Forza Motorsport. With GPU, they can stream at 1080/60, enjoy the 'game' and look better than FH5 running 'Natively' on their S and 1080/60 TV, feel better to play too as its '60fps' not 30fps...

Final Fantasy 16 isn't coming to Xbox and will probably be one of the best games of the year.

Starfield is one of the biggest games of the year and isn't coming to Playstation.

It all sounds fair. Each console has its Exclusives. Time to move on.

I think you are mistaken, @Rmg0731, and the same is true of much of the community. Phil never said Starfield would not be an Xbox exclusive, or even that it would release on the PlayStation. He never said is would be either. What he did do was be very clever with his words; what he said consistently, was that 'they would not take games away from other consoles'. Many took that to mean that as Starfield had been announced as being in development, that it would therefore come to the PlayStation, but that wasn't what he meant. He meant existing games, not future games. No platforms had ever been announced for Starfield prior to the Bethesda acquisition, it was just generally assumed that it would come to all consoles (and it probably would have). However, if a game has not been announced for a console, theoretically, you cannot then take it away from them, which is precisely what transpired.

Except that at one point Sony was talking to Bethesda about Starfield console exclusive until Microsoft bought the company.

So, in some sense, Starfield was pulled from PlayStation to some capacity - even though it's a new IP.

I mean, Bethesda could have told Sony to "eat sand", but it's not as if Bethesda said "we aren't even considering your platform at all, so why are your here". It was being worked and then dropped - even if platforms for the game were never formally announced in the initial E3 2018 trailer.

I understand exclusives and their importance - I buy Sony and Nintendo for their exclusive content as well as Xbox.

But in the Starfield case, I do think it was a case of Microsoft overtly flexing it's money muscles at Sony and I do see this being a case where people can look through the PR speak.

Business is business. But don't come off as a saint in Starfield's case.

@Tharsman Good point as, despite constant speculation, we really don't know what sort of contracts are in place behind the scenes. Although I'd be highly surprised if there was any unannounced ZeniMax games that we haven't heard of that will release on PlayStation.

@Would_you_kindly

I don't want to play it I'm not interested in it lol & how's it more options than Sony gives

Thanks for the clarification, some of us here were almost fooled in thinking that you actually care and want to play Starfield. But of course not, you're here to bash Microsoft and show your undying blinkered love for Sony - how silly of us 😀....

I think it was more like:

SONY: gets 1 year exclusivity for Deathloop.

MICROSOFT: Damn. Thats a shame for our userbase.

SONY: gets 1 year exclusivity for Ghostwire.

MICROSOFT: Damn.

SONY: tries to get 1 year exclusivity for Starfield.

MICROSOFT: Buys Zenimax

SONY: shocked Pikachu face.

… but actually I do think there is something to this. If Sony wasn’t paying to keep games away from Xbox users maybe Xbox wouldn’t have had as much reason to purchase Zenimax. Some may say that Sony showed Microsoft that it was cool to have Zenimax games as exclusives…

@Chaudy completely agree on this but some won't move on sadly. Always something to complain about.

It's funny how many say sony were trying to get starfield as an exclusive, yet theres no facts or statements to back that up. It was a journalist on twitter from "Kinda Funny" who has 57k followers who made that rumour and everyone just believes it.

@UltimateOtaku91 agree the source is questionable. But given the trend with Deathloop and Ghostwhire. You cant deny there may be some element of truth to it. Why go for those and not the biggie?

Very similar to what Disney did… bought Star Wars, Fox and Marvel content to compete with Netflix… how did that turn out for them?

@Jaxx420 starfield would be more of a risk to make timed exclusive at the time due to it being Bethesda's main title on the scale of fallout and elder scrolls games. Whilst Deathloop and Ghostwire were new smaller experimental IP's. It would of cost sony a tonne load to land starfield as an exclusive.

@Would_you_kindly FF7R at launch was PS4 only. Not as many options at launch.

@UltimateOtaku91 more risk than Forspoken, Babylon Fall and Marvel Avengers DLC exclusivity deals? 🤔

@Tharsman By risk I meant from Bethesda point of view, a risk for them to make exclusive as its one of their bigger games which would bring in a lot of guaranteed sales.

@UltimateOtaku91 Bethesda was in a lot of financial trouble. Had Microsoft not acquired them, chances are they would had been forced to take a deal from Sony to be able to even cross the finish line.

There still has not been a Bethesda game released exclusive to Xbox the past 3 years to sadden me with only my PS4 and no GP subscription. Maybe Red Fall or Starfield will. Fallout 5 certainly could, but that's a big if, when, and if it is not messed up.

So much arguing over a brand new IP none of us have even played. We don’t know if it’s going to be a huge success or if it will tank. Arguing over what Phil said, or didn’t say, couldn’t say, or what he implied and for what? Where is it getting any of us? Team Xbox isn’t going to sway Team PlayStation nor the other way around. There’s games that sometimes don’t come to your platform of choice. We’ve all been there.

I wasn’t happy over the Silent Hill 2 remake PS5 12 month exclusivity but I’m not going to bash Sony or PlayStation gamers for it. I have a choice. I can either get a PS5 and play it there, I can play it on steam, or I can continue waiting to see if the 12 months exclusivity is true. Other games have been supposedly timed and never came over to Xbox. I’m not happy about it but it is what it is. I have three options to pick from. Those that want to play Starfield have options to choose. It may not be the option you were hoping for, but you got options.

@UltimateOtaku91 Starfield would be peanuts for Sony considering it has shelled out to lock out all the newer Final Fantasy titles.

@NoCode23 Hi-Fi Rush?

I can't wait to play it...on my Steamdeck.

Sony pays for exclusivity on dozens of games and no one bats an eye.

Microsoft makes one game exclusive and everyone loses their minds!!

@EvilSilentFrame How dare you bring rationality, civility, and an adult attitude to this conversation?!

@EvenStephen7 I know, crazy talk. Please forgive me.

@Sebatrox every content/licence agreement Sony has made since 2012 has to be handed over. Wow. Could be a game changer not just for the Activision Blizzard case but how the regulators monitor the industry going forward.

This really bugs me. They say they won't take games away from players but yet the outer worlds that launched as multi plat has been made exclusive to xbox and thus you can't play the outer worlds 2 unless you join the GP ecosystem. Taking games away that launched Multiplatform is such a terrible practice!

@Sebatrox have you seen a new article on Push Square. Sony wants to make PlayStation the best place for third party games.

In an Interview with Games Industry. Shawne Benson says that what is more important than any exclusivity deal is making the PlayStation version of a game stand out as being the best. Sounds like there already putting plans in place just in case the documents the FTC granted Microsoft causes a stir.

@Sebatrox ‘Judge Chappell mentions that according to Sony, Microsoft would have been willing to drop one of those custodians from the list if the two parties had reached an agreement on the scope of discovery through negotiations. But in the absence of such an agreement, Judge Chappell decided that part against Sony. It's possible that not only in that respect but also in others, Sony could have obtained a better result through an agreement with Microsoft.’

I have a feeling Sony are gonna come away from this worse than they went in. MS have been granted access from 2019-present, Sony filed a motion against documents being handed over and failed. Oh boy.

Edit: Oh interesting they also have to show all their license agreements from 2012 onwards.

@Sebatrox hopefully there’s an article about this soon around here, so we can see what excuses our resident Sony simps will make in advance 😄

@cragis0001 final fantasy launched as a sony exclusive thats the difference. Final Fantasy 7 was only on Playstation and is well known as one of the greatest ps exclusives of all time.

@Chaudy @Fenbops silent hill 2 remake also isnt coming to Xbox. Not just for 12 months but ever. It launched as a ps2 exclusive and thus it should remain exclusive. Silent Hill is and always will be a 1st Party sony IP. It would be like Mario Kart releasing on Xbox. Its just plain wrong

@Bricktop33 what drugs are you on? Literally no one here expects god of war to come to Xbox 🤣

@Bricktop33 Final Fantasy was originally a Nintendo exclusive so by your justification it should be on both Nintendo & PlayStation I guess? If you believe your pitiful Silent Hill 2 remake exclusive excuse.

I've said exactly this before, @K1LLEGAL. A big part of Microsoft buying Bethesda, may well have been the possibility of Sony trying to get something as big as Starfield as an exclusive. It was quite possibly a step too far for Microsoft...

@Fenbops you should read the forums, they are full of morons saying ragnarok should have been on series X.

@cragis0001 final fantasy 1 to 6 belong on Nintendo yes. 7 only belongs on its home platformm

@Bricktop33 what forums?

@cragis0001 they requested documents from 2012 , they've been granted access to 2019 onwards

@Brue The big difference is that Nintendo and Sony are perceived as developing their own IPs, whereas MS is perceived as buying IPs to keep them from Sony. As people have pointed out, Sony does indeed buy some exclusivity, but its biggest as most famous IPs are made in house or by second party studios. Thus, as is often the case, perception doesn't completely match reality.

@Bricktop33 Square Enix disagrees as the original Final Fantasy 7 has been on nearly every format now. Same with the recent release of Final Fantasy 1-6 on mobile & soon console.

@Would_you_kindly aye. The YouTube video I watched said 2012. But seen in an article later that they wanted from 2012 but were granted access to documents from 2019.

@Valgore I think what they mean by not taking games away from other platforms is that they won't take away existing Bethesda games that are on Playstation and Nintendo from the digital store fronts.

Like for example, Elder Scrolls Online, Skyrim, older Wolfenstein games, Fallout 76 will remain on the Playstation Store.

Like wise, the first Outer Worlds will remain on the Playstation store.

@ActionPanther difference is Sony made the game. Bethesda made Starfield, Xbox had no input wat so ever. And you do know Spiderman was originally offered to Microsoft an Xbox? MS turned it down, Sony then said yes, the rest is history.

@anoyonmus Yeah maybe but still the outerworlds launched as a multiplatform game and thus I feel should stay one. Xbox can create games left, right and centre and make them exclusive and fair play but when you take games that launched multi plat that's a dirty practice. No company should do that.

@Valgore Games, not series. OW1 is a game. OW2 is a different game that's part of the same series. I somewhat want to agree with you, imagine Assassin's Creed becoming Nintendo excluisve for example, it would feel all kinds of wrong. And yet, we're in this cycle were games take half a generation to make and series span decades. In the old days most series were done by the end of a generation. It's hard to manage the business side of acquisitions without crossing that line at this point, where there's not much in the way of games that AREN'T multiplat series. I think when people make the mistake of comparing "Sony did it this way, so MS shouldn't do it that way" they're forgetting, Sony did things the way they did in a very different time when hardware mandated games were mostly exclusive even if they weren't, and when a game selling 100,000 copies was a blockbuster and 1M was essentially unheard of. Now a game is dead if it doesn't move 10M in a week. It's just such a different landscape for this and we can't compare the 90's and 00's to today. That whole "organic development" trope had to start in that old time period, it mostly doesn't exist today.

@NEStalgia I don't believe that the amount of time it takes to create a game makes any difference at all when we know that the OW2 would have launched Multiplatform like OW1 and I as many others would believe that a sequal would release to all the people who played the first one and not be locked behind a certain ecosystem. I have to admit I would be very interested in the numbers to see how many players play it at launch compared to the first.

@Valgore That also assumes that Obsidian would have had the money to actually make OW2....or actually even fix OW1 through completion, to begin with, though. Obsidian's problem since the end of Black Isle and formation of Obsidian is that they've never actually had the funds to complete properly any project they've worked on. Even with Sega behind Alpha Protocol ,and EA behind KotOR2, they have had dire funding problems that has impacted all their games. One could say "but maybe Sony buying timed exclusivity" would have solved the problem, but the, they still have a game locked to an ecosystem, and, obviously, Sony never offered that....and MS offered a buyout....and here we are....

As a Black Isle fan, Obsidian's output is something I've tracked since day one. Also used to know a dev there. Money was never not a problem for them. It's nice to imagine a perfect world where Obsidian made the games they wanted, prospered independently, always had agreeable publishing deals, and all their games were polished and finished without running out of money, but.......that never happened. It hadn't happened since Black Isle still existed. (And after the Interplay hostile takeover, Black Isle wasn't even paying royalties to Bioware for BG2:ToB which is how they ended up saddled to EA and then dismantled.)

@NEStalgia I never knew about thier funding to be honest as I never looked very deep into it, I guess I as many others just felt as I said "The 2nd should be multiplatform due to the 1st one being multiplatform" but I never thought about the actual development of said games and the money needed etc. While I'm definitely not a fan of follow up games being made exclusive, you have made me think about it a different way. I absolutely loved OW1 and I'm very glad that it's getting another game in the hopefully bigger franchise. Thank you for your detailed reply, I appreciate you taking the time. Cheers mate.