Bethesda's brand-new space exploration RPG Starfield officially launched last week and it really is exclusive to Xbox and PC platforms - there's no definitely no sign of it ever coming to PlayStation or Nintendo.
If this has got you wondering about the future of certain Xbox game releases going forward, Phil Spencer has reiterated in an interview with Bloomberg how platform exclusives will be determined on a case-by-case basis. This was in response to a question about the possibility of The Elder Scrolls 6 being locked exclusively to Microsoft's consoles (along with PC) when it eventually arrives:
Phil Spencer: "Yeah, we look at it on a case-by-case basis, with the games we that we built, we want to make sure our games are available in so many different places on our Xbox consoles, on PC also via cloud, these games can come to almost any web-enabled device. We're looking at millions and millions of players who have had access to Starfield and other Xbox Games Studio games, it's really about giving players choice around how they want to play and they build their library of games."
Xbox previously stated how exclusives would be based "on a case-by-case basis", with Spencer even mentioning earlier this year how exclusive titles are just a part of the console business and act as "marketing beats for the platform".
As for The Elder Scrolls 6 specifically, during the FTC hearing back in June, Phil said at the time how it was "hard to understand" what platforms the anticipated title would be on when a release was still potentially "five-plus years away".
Starfield's exclusivity does not appear to have limited Bethesda's reach, with the company announcing earlier this week that it not only exceeded 1 million concurrent players at launch, but it's now also officially the company's biggest game launch ever - placing it ahead of the Fallout and The Elder Scrolls series.
How do you feel about Xbox potentially making certain Bethesda titles exclusive going forward? Comment below.
Comments 32
Seems pretty clear to me:
That's smart business. There will be exceptions of course but i'd expect that to hold most of the time.
But don't give us the tired "it's really about giving players choice" line Phil, even the most devout console warrior should see that doesn't hold any weight.
Maybe everything will be Xbox exclusive expect legacy or retro content re-releases or ports will be released everywhere like the recent Quake 2.
@themightyant
It’s all about what is best for business and their strategy going forward as it evolves.
I mean you could make more money per game going multiplatform but then you may lose out on gamepass subscription and console sales money.
I guess Microsoft’s heaven would be to have gamepass on all consoles PS5 / Switch probably through cloud but even direct download if they wished the extra time to do it.
ES6 is years away, but let's not kid ourselves, it's very unlikely to come to PS consoles.
Starfield is number UK chart sales.
@Moonglow Eh? Xbox games have come to PC for years, this isn't about that at all. This was specifically about whether they will be platform exclusives, nothing to do with PC, and the line about "giving players choice" is just straight up corporate BS.
As both @OldGamer999 and I said this will be about what is best for their business strategy going forward. If a game is going to make far more money multiplatform than it would being exclusive MS will likely do that.
Of course it's difficult to weigh up money made from Game Sales and MTX etc. vs Game Pass subscriptions, retention, brand loyalty and what they are building long term. It's not an easy thing to calculate. But i'd assume they will lean more on exclusivity where they can if in doubt. They are playing the long term game.
@Jimboss a leaked email is just an email. Things can change and we have already seen Quake and Quake II remasters come out everywhere. Even if they aren’t new surely they fall under “existing”.
@themightyant yea I agree - basically something like Quake 2 isn’t going to shift consoles (or allegiances) so why not sell it everywhere and get that PS/Switch income too. Something new and exciting though like an Elder Scrolls has that power so will be exclusive. Though I wonder about the rumoured Oblivion remake…
Not gonna pretend that if I was in Microsoft's shoes I wouldn't make everything that wasn't a long established IP with a few exceptions exclusives. Even with all the acquisitions and in 10 years of dev time I'm doubtful it'd be enough to inch out of Third Place. Their other biggest problem is a lack of Third-Parties, especially Japanese games. Yeah they said they're working closer with Square Enix, but that's one dev, and one dev that favors Sony as of now. They need the smaller studios behind them, and I think an easy temptation is to take the Steam & Nintendo approach and advertise they won't censor games like Sony does. Would either give Xbox an edge over them in that regard or cause them to change that aspect to compete better. Right now they need anything, and while FF14 is a big step and a big game, it is just one game. Maybe they have more in the works, but I said that last year after the last Square ports, sooo...
@themightyant @Jimboss It reminds me of when Microsoft did all those ads in the UK (newspapers, London underground, etc.) about the Activision acquisition bringing CoD to more players soon before the CMA announced the acquisition being blocked in the UK.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the CMA either don't accept the new deal that Microsoft proposed (the one about Ubisoft having the cloud rights for 15 years) or announces a phase 2 of the investigation very close to the extension deadline in October.
i should imagine one of the numerous re-releases of starfield will be multiplatform because it would make more money when the need to be an exclusive is long past.
Can't believe this is news again. Phil Spencer must feel like he's in Groundhogs Day the way he gets asked the same question over and over again.
Seems like Starfield is a great success as an exclusive. Until I hear otherwise, I will assume ES6 will go the same route.
@themightyant MS only started to release their 'exclusives' on PC the same day/date in about 2016/7. Before that, they either never came to PC at all or got released much later so the 'choice' to play on the day of release was extremely limited to 'just' the Console.
Now, everyone can potentially play Starfield. It may not be on their Competitions 'console' Hardware, but that doesn't mean that those Gamers don't have a LOT of choice to decide where they want to play - its not 'buy a Series S/X' or miss out entirely, like you have to buy a PS5 to play Spider-Man 2 on release (even if it does come to PC a year or so later). You can play on PC - whether its a Gaming PC for 'native' play or via Game Pass Cloud, and basically any 'cloud' enabled device - its also on Steam too so also on Steam Deck - therefore not even 'exclusive' to Consoles as the SD is a 'hand held console'!!
Just because its 'not' on Playstation, that doesn't mean that they have 'reduced' the amount of 'platforms' they can reach. Without 'Xbox', this game would likely not be available on 'Cloud', therefore can't reach all those various Cloud enabled Platforms - mobiles, TV's, Laptops etc - Almost any device with a 'browser'.
Therefore Phil isn't lying as you have 'Far' more choice today than you would have. The Choice would have been PC, Series S/X or PS5, now its PC, Series S/X, or ANY of the many platforms that support Cloud gaming - Mobiles, TV's, handheld streaming devices, last gen Xbox hardware etc and even Steam Deck (another Console) - a LOT more choice for the Gamer and you are 'never' required to buy an Xbox Console to play or 'miss-out'. So many 'more' can play on the day it launches on 'more' devices than ever before - therefore Phil is not lying - their games are on MORE devices, giving Gamers far more Choice on which 'device' to play on and I bet that most, if not all PS gamers have a 'device' they can play Starfield on - maybe not the 'best' way to play, but still an 'option' if they can't/don't want to spend hundreds on Hardware for a single game.
What choice does Playstation offer? Answer, they don't!! You want to play Spider-Man 2 for example, its 'ONLY' on Playstation - at least until its popularity and 'sales' drop, then it may get a PC port and/or added to PS+ to extract any extra 'income' they can from it knowing its not 'selling' Hardware anymore...
@themightyant
Summed it up perfectly.
@BAMozzy Yes and No. The stores/platforms games like Starfield
are available on are only Xbox (including devices with Game Pass) and PC (Steam). Xbox is far more than just a console box now it's an ecosystem, so YES it may be available on more devices potentially. But there is less choice where you can build your digital library, you are still stuck on either Xbox/Game Pass or PC (Steam) so NO, it's a false promise.
Yes by the exact letter of what he says we DO have a choice, but it's now just a binary one Xbox (ecosystem) or PC (Steam). Surely the meaning is there is MORE choice than before, but there isn't, there is less.
P.S. Why bring Sony into this? They aren't the ones promising more choice of where to build our libraries. When they start shouting their mouths off about BS, I have in the past, and will continue to, call them out on it too.
I don't mind if those games were exclusive coz I don't care about those games. I only care about JRPGs. As long as it's available on PC, I'll be happy. I do hate exclusives tho, when it's by third party companies sticking to 1 platform only.
@themightyant “it’s about giving players choice” is basically a marketing slogan by this point, and on most situations it comes followed with the “streaming/PC/Xbox console” as “choose”.
It’s almost like BK’s “make it your way (so long your way is that we fire-grill the meat)”.
As for the multiplayer games, I think it’s going to depend heavily on whom is making it. For all purposes Redfall was a multiplayer game, even solo play demands being online, yet it’s still Xbox console exclusive.
I think multiplayer games from existing IP, from Activision (not all of ABK) or Zenimax will be multi-platform. New IP will likely remain Xbox console exclusive. Anything done by pre-existing Xbox games studios (coalition, 343, etc) will be Xbox exclusive regardless what form such game takes.
Edit: anything with the name Minecraft on it will likely also be forever a multi-console release.
@Jimboss
Yet they releases Quake 2 remaster on all platforms. It’s a lower profile release, but it’s proof that they will indeed work on a case-by-case basis.
If other platforms wants es6 they can just sign a deal with MS.
@Tharsman Agree with all you said except Redfall which (thankfully) doesn't have microtransactions and hence wouldn't meet the criteria of "making a LOT more money being multiplatform". Whereas it WOULD fall into "boosting Xbox as a brand" (or would have if it was the great game they wanted/expected) hence why it would still fall into the console exclusive bracket according to my rules.
Love the BK's analogy, so true. you have CHOICE (as long as it's one of our limited choices)
@themightyant due to leaks, we know Redfall was planned with micro transactions. It was only post acquisition that the team managed to convince management to drop them since Zenimax was no longer in the position to demand such service game models. But basically, the day Phill walked in and said “you are no longer doing a PS version”, the plan was still a standard multiplayer service game.
This is what leads me to believe that “new IP”’ is key for acquired publishers going exclusive. That is not to say all legacy IP will remain multiplat. Can see Wolfenstein 3 going either way, and Elder Scrolls 6 going full exclusive.
@Jimboss even if they literally just make all the “low earners” multiplat and the high earners exclusive, it would be true.
If sounds that your issue is that that won’t tell you that high profile games will be exclusive. And honestly, I think all high profile games going forward will be Xbox console exclusive, the only game I see potentially making it to PlayStation is Wolfenstein 3 and the rumored Spyro “4”, if it’s real.
@Grumblevolcano
Never gonna happen. The investigation moving to a phase 2 yet again would take way too long and move MS and ABK past their deadline, and they aren’t going to extend it again and the CMA has to be aware of that. This was more about the CMA saving face themselves and squeaking out a few more concessions in the process.
MS will absolutely close this deal before their new deadline, with or without the CMA’s approval and there is no question at this point they will get that approval. There will be no need to close over the CMA. I expect it will be announced in the next week.
I think when Phil talks about giving gamers choice this is more about accessibility through form factors then true choice.
He isn't promoting to put all the MS games on Sony or Nintendo consoles. He is promoting the ability to play in a variety of different ways on different form factors for XB. aka XB Console, Cloud, PC, Tablet, and Phone.
As long as Sony and Nintendo insist on keeping their games exclusive to their consoles MS has every right not to ship their first party games on the other two consoles.
@NeoRatt
Exactly. He is talking about exactly that and has actually said it many times right after making that more choice statement. It’s about giving people a bigger choice on where they play their games in the Xbox/PC ecosystem as well as streaming. Just because some competing console platforms miss out on some releases doesn’t make Phil’s statement inaccurate or a lie.
I can unequivocally say that as an Xbox gamer and PC gamer, I now have more choices than I ever have in regards to how I want to play a particular game.
@RIghteousNixon I don't think it's safe to assume anything to be honest. Everyone expected CMA to approve the acquisition back in April but they blocked it instead, everyone also expected Microsoft to close the acquisition by bypassing the CMA in June/July but it didn't happen either.
The whole thing about Microsoft and Activision walking away from the acquisition if it wasn't approved by the July deadline turned out to be a lie.
@Grumblevolcano
While the deadlines have past, MS was clear that years of investigation and appeals were unacceptable. Really at the end of the day the deal is ending up with a 3.5 month delay. That is OK.
If it goes significantly past October I would expect MS to walk away at some point. But, I agree that we should all be dubious as to what people say through the press and what companies say.
I read an article today on the 9 most slimy professions... 1) Lobbyists, 2) Telemarketers, 3) Members of Congress, 4) Car Salespeople, 5) State Office Holders 6) Business Execs, 7) TV Reporters, 8) Advertising Practitioners, 9) Newspaper Reporters.
While I am sure a lot of these people are legit and just bunched with the worst, we should use a critical view when listening to these people.
give playstation nothing! NOTHING!
Some would say MS is being smart about this. I would say, if MS plans to continue making consoles, it's being too generous. If you put a piece of hardware on the market, the goal should be to sell it, best way to do that is with some exclusives.
@GunValkyria
Twitter (or X or whatever it's called in the future), will be highly entertaining that day.
Part of me likes the idea of MS screwing Sony as hard as Sony screwed MS, but I tend to agree with @themightyant. They'll most likely lock up the single player games.
I do hope they keep most multiplayer games cross platform. Exclusives are bad for gamers.
@Grumblevolcano
They blocked it and in the long run have made themselves look irrational and biased, basically singling themselves out from the entire world on the deal. They were ordered to go back and reassess the deal. The only reason MS is playing nice at this point is because they might find themselves up in front of the CMA again soon enough. MS was never walking away from this deal unless they lost to the FTC in court, and that was never gonna happen. Hands down the single weakest case I have ever seen the FTC bring in front of a judge and they got demolished in court
This deal is way way way too big of a deal for MS to walk away due to just the CMA. And the CMA is never gonna go against the deal again knowing the FTC got demolished and they are basically the last man standing against it. They are fully 100% aware the deck is stacked against them and if they do block it again, MS will show just how irrelevant the CMA is when it comes to stopping a worldwide merger this big.
It’s a done deal. The announcement will come any day now.
People who jump on Phil are usually people who want every Xbox first party game to be on PlayStation with nothing in return.
Phil is giving gamers far more choice on where to play Xbox games compared to Sony. But that doesn't mean they need to give away the farm.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...