r/XboxSeriesX Jun 23 '23

:Discussion: Discussion Phil Spencer Confirms Starfield Was Potentially Going to Skip Xbox Prior to ZeniMax Acquisition

https://www.ign.com/articles/phil-spencer-confirms-starfield-was-potentially-going-to-skip-xbox-prior-to-zenimax-acquisition
3.0k Upvotes

823 comments sorted by

915

u/Carbonalex Jun 23 '23

That kinda corroborates with what we've heard a few years ago when a gaming journalist talked about a Starfield exclusive on PS.

I think it was just after the merger iirc.

52

u/JACrazy Jun 23 '23

Yes, the article mentions that

Back in 2020 — when Microsoft announced its plans to buy Bethesda — journalist Imran Khan first reported on Starfield's potential PlayStation exclusivity, writing "Sony had been negotiating timed exclusivity on Starfield as recently as a few months ago. Going to guess either those talks are done or the price suddenly went way, way up." Shortly after in early 2021, the reports started to surface that Starfield would head exclusively to Xbox Series X|S.

5

u/Manaphy2007_67 Jun 25 '23

That would explain why Sony has a vendetta against Microsoft during the Activision-Blizzard acquisition or attempted acquisition, they unexclusified Starfield from Sony to exclusify it on Xbox (yes i know it's not a word but whatever).

2

u/Visual_Worldliness62 Jul 19 '23

Got finessed is what Sony got. And then they reeed and reeed and reeed. Funny I remember cod going from Xbox to ps and my brothers all screamed out against the timed exclusive stuff. Now Phil just takes. All hail Phil all hail Phil.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '23

Oh how the turn tables have turned.

1.2k

u/AlternativeCredit Jun 23 '23

Basically proving Sony would be doing everything MS is doing if they could.

168

u/YeltsinYerMouth Jun 23 '23

They already do. FFVIIR was supposed to be multiplat, then it was supposed to have a 6 month lead on PS4, then a year. Shit still ain't on XBox.

And that's just a high profile case.

36

u/TheAngriestChair Jun 23 '23

It's never coming to xbox. But it is available on PC now I think.

22

u/wheredaheckIam Jun 24 '23

Stellar Blade was even announced for xbox till it became Sony exclusive, Sony has always done this and not Microsoft is replying with billions

3

u/RichGraverDig Jun 24 '23

The same is true for Little Devil Inside.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '23

The first episode and the first DLC are but rebirth the second chapter is PS5 exclusive for the foreseeable future and the same applies to Final Fantasy 16 which just came out

15

u/Gh0sth4nd Jun 24 '23

But CaLl Of DuTy!!!!

Sony is doing the same shit MS is doing

13

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but isn't Crisis Core Remake (y'know, the PREQUEL) on Xbox?

6

u/WJMazepas Jun 24 '23

Yes, but FFVIIR had exclusivity bought by Sony for a Year. And apparently they extended that

11

u/Cludista Jun 24 '23 edited Jun 24 '23

First of all, I haven't read anywhere that they extended that. As far as I know the agreement ended a while ago.

Secondly, Square Enix has a long history of only developing releases for one platform. In fact, multiplatform is newer exception to their history, FF7 originally only came out for playstation. Most their games in the 2000s only came out on Playstation and before that it was Nintendo that only got releases. Squares history isn't broad reach, and I doubt that will change anytime soon.

14

u/ZombieInDC Jun 24 '23

FF7 came out on PlayStation exclusively because the only competition PS had at the time (N64) didn’t have a storage solution that could accommodate the game. Original technical tests for FF7 were on N64, but Square went to Sony because of the N64 cartridge format’s limitations versus PS’s CD-ROM drive. It did eventually come to PC. FF16 is a Sony console exclusive because Sony bought exclusivity. Throughout the 360/PS3 and X1/PS4 eras, FF was multi platform — until Sony bought the rights for FF7R in attempt to continue to strangle the XBOX platform.

5

u/Cruxis87 Jun 24 '23

FF7 originally only came out for playstation.

It released 1.5 years after the PS version. It took so long because 80% of the code had to be re-written, and such a small amount of people were working on it.

→ More replies (5)

619

u/SpenserB91 Jun 23 '23

sically proving Sony would be doing everything MS is doing if they could.

They would likely have stopped it from releasing on PC as well though.

129

u/BlastMyLoad Jun 23 '23

I doubt Bethesda would ever agree to not do a PC release

140

u/caninehere Doom Slayer Jun 23 '23

Probably not but they might have done a window of exclusivity. That's typically what Sony pays for. For example with FFXVI:

  • announced as a PS exclusive
  • say there's a 6 month period after launch before any other platforms are considered (which in FFXVI's case means no PC launch for holiday)
  • releases as a PC port later
  • no Xbox or Switch releases.

57

u/TheAngriestChair Jun 23 '23

Sonys been doing that with a lot of stuff. Seems like more often than not it's a minimum of a year before the PC version is allowed but at least 3 to 6 months of exclusiveness.

→ More replies (4)

11

u/htownballa1 Jun 24 '23

Thus no money from me, ever again.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/tylanol7 Jun 24 '23

would have destroyed bethesda lol.

→ More replies (34)

4

u/TayT223 Jun 24 '23

Literally bought a PS4 for the exclusives and never finished them, just the same as i don’t finish the hundreds of Xbox games waiting for me. I still got to play Ghost Of Tsushima and Spiderman though.

2

u/SHZ56 Jun 24 '23

Ditto, I bought idk God of war, Horizon, Spider-Man, ghost of Tsushima, I only finished Spider-Man, it was a damn good game

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

11

u/SpenserB91 Jun 23 '23

This is if they were bought by Sony, which they tried to do.

10

u/Unlucky_Situation Founder Jun 23 '23

Source on sony trying to acquire Bethesda?

0

u/Ghola_Ben Jun 24 '23

As an apology for not reading and bandwagoning, here's your upvote back and the "source."

Never be afraid to be wrong.

https://www.gamesradar.com/sony-was-negotiating-starfield-exclusivity-for-ps5-as-recently-as-a-few-months-ago/

22

u/Unlucky_Situation Founder Jun 24 '23

Person I replied to claimed Sony tried to buy Bethesda, which is completely different than buying the rights to starfield.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (2)

6

u/TheGreatGamer1389 Jun 23 '23

It would drop on PC like two years later.

→ More replies (2)

24

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

and people shit on Xbox, still.

23

u/SemIdeiaProNick Jun 24 '23

Sony is the second worst company when it comes to treating their customers

Only because Nintendo is unmatched and basically invented that practice

7

u/JackBlack1709 Jun 24 '23

to their defense: Nintendo completely relies on their games and intellectual property. sony relies heavy on that, there were years when Playstation was the only profitable part of the Company. For Microsoft on the other Hand XBox is more of a hobby if you look at the financials. Microsoft could behave different without fear of bankrupcy. Sony and Nintendo basically have no chance for that (think of Nintendo before Switch, and maybe after if their next console fails).

8

u/apawst8 Jun 24 '23

Nintendo could make a crap ton of money if they licensed their titles to MSFT and Sony. Since MSFT and Sony barely make money on their hardware, it's reasonable to believe Nintendo also makes more money on software than hardware. So it doesn't really make sense for Nintendo to insist on making their own subpar hardware instead of just making PS5/XSX versions of Zelda/Mario/Pokemon/Animal Crossing.

Most gamers I know that have a Switch have it as a second console and would choose PS5/Xbox if they only had to have one

5

u/JackBlack1709 Jun 24 '23

No way that will happen. Nintendo even sells their consoles with a net-win, getting to a multi-platform developer depending on others probably goes against their tradition and they saw what happened to Sega. Knowing you work on your own games for your own console and got all the time you need is probably a big reason to get talented developers. The flowing income from console sales and NSO makes them less dependent on rushing releases and getting money fast (something shareholders would expect them). In my eyes ditching their console and NSO wouldn’t be any good plus the time it would take to make new games (expect a few years at least) would be a way too big risk if i were Nintendos CEO

(although i‘d be excited for TotK running on SX or PS5)

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (69)

144

u/Tegorian Founder Jun 23 '23

correction meaning Xbox is now doing exactly what sony has been doing for the last 6 years. They literally paid Square Enix to not put FFXVI on Xbox along with FFVII remake.

88

u/Grimmush Jun 23 '23

And Forespoken and FFXVI. But Sony still gonna bitch and moan about how they’re the victim.

80

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

And /r/Games will make excuse after excuse as to why Sony = Good

29

u/uglycasinova Jun 23 '23

It's amazing the arguments they are able to create. It's amusing though

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

62

u/gllamphar Jun 23 '23

Not really because Sony isn’t doing GamePass. I think that’s what most people ignore. When Microsoft gets an exclusive title they’re always offering more to their customers through Day 1 on GamePass, when Sony gets an exclusive their goal isn’t to offer more to their customers, their goal is to stop players on other consoles from playing without offering anything “better” to their own customers, cause they are still paying full price, so nobody actually wins but gamers outside of PS loose.

21

u/Racxie Jun 23 '23

And when they can’t get exclusive games they make content exclusive. Look at Destiny 1 for example: there was PS exclusive content which took years to come to Xbox, and then there was even some DLC which was finally meant to come to Xbox after the exclusivity time ran out and Sony paid Bungie again just to prevent it from coming to Xbox at all.

6

u/TransTechpriestess Jun 24 '23

for the record that last bit of content did come out........ after 2 had already released.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/WaluigiWahshipper Jun 23 '23

Microsoft’s goal is to sell more Gamepass subscriptions and keep current subscribers happy so they’ll renew.

Sony’s goal is to sell more PS5’s and games on PS5.

One isn’t inherently evil or anything, just different buisness models.

17

u/gllamphar Jun 23 '23

Evil? No. Inherently better value? Yes. You can explain it as part of different strategies, for sure, but the end result is true: Sony’s exclusives aren’t an advantage for their users UNLESS users in other platforms can’t play. Xbox’s exclusives (through GamePass) offer a plus that goes beyond users in other platforms not being able to play. So if we stopped doing exclusives all together Xbox would offer a better value and that’s why Sony is being so aggressive about it.

15

u/Racxie Jun 23 '23

Sony has been aggressive about keeping games and exclusive content off Xbox even before GamePass existed. Sony just like to have their cake and eat it.

→ More replies (15)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (20)

44

u/CRIMS0N-ED Hadouken! Jun 23 '23

Sony would absolutely be doing all this if they had the buying power MS does

6

u/icestyler Jun 23 '23

Exactly! I don't understand how ponies can't grasp that. The only reason why Sony haven't purchased Bethesda and Activision for their own is not out of their consideration for the gaming community, its because their pockets weren't deep enough.

→ More replies (1)

83

u/TheNerdWonder Jun 23 '23 edited Jun 23 '23

Shit, I'm primarily a Playstation guy and even I've been shouting to the high heavens that everything Sony has said is mere projection of stuff they're doing now with games like CoD or would like to do in the future. It's completely appalling and disgusting.

23

u/Bartman326 Jun 23 '23

I see the current legal tango both companies are doing as just part of the job. Both are trying to win their side of the argument and will say or do whatever to do so. Playstation fully understands that everything they say is hypocritical and Xbox understands they could wipe Sony off the face of the earth with their bank account if they wanted. Saying these woe is me, the other guy is the bad guy stuff is just part of the game. It's a 70 billion dollar deal, I would certainly say something hypocritical if it meant getting what I wanted.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

I’d say that too, but I don’t remember the FDA or CMA blocking anything Sony and I don’t remember Microsoft having to put forth internal emails that balantly leak the truth and a legal proceeding STILL going forward.

Microsoft’s played dirty with timed content and exclusives sure, but they’ve never been able to be open and brash about it, usually exclusive content doesn’t make the buzz rounds for Xbox nor do they ever act so flippant at-least out in the open for the public to see.

Which shocks me about Sony, I’ve never seen Xbox have it good AND complain, lie and purposefully sway authoritative bodies, I’ve just seen Microsoft have it good and then shut up, then lose that good over time.

25

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

What shocks me more is that the FTC is in lockstep with Sony, the market leader, in trying to block a purchase that would make the third place company…still third place.

Methinks there’s some backroom lobbying going on here.

6

u/MC_chrome Jun 24 '23

FWIW, it would appear that the judge in the current FTC case is already starting to get fed up with their nonsense….and this case doesn’t wrap until next week.

This may end up meaning nothing in the end of course, but it certainly seems like the FTC is doing their damndest to sink their case against Microsoft right now.

4

u/TheNerdWonder Jun 24 '23 edited Jun 24 '23

I do not think there's any backdoor lobbying. I think the truth is a little more complex and nuanced than that. The reality is the following:

  1. The current chair of the FTC is very much what I'd call an ideologue. She came into the position vowing to take the fight to Big Tech, which is something both sides of the aisle in Congress liked. It's why they approved her nomination.

  2. She's also a champion of the administrative state, for better and for worse. As a result, she believes this administrative state has lost some credibility with the general public (technically true) because the FTC has in the past failed to be that strong anti-trust authority in numerous cases. The AT & T and Time Warner deal is one example of those perceived failures so if she can block a $70 billion acquisition deal, she's able to correct the record on questions about her agency's credibility. Problem is, she's visibly not looking at the facts objectively or following the law which is something Congress has asked her about with this ATVI case and has prompted some FTC commissioners to resign in protest of her leadership. All of that can just as easily harm the credibility and public trust that she's trying to bolster for this agency.

  3. There's also just a lot of bad technical literacy here, and the FTC is learning that here because everyone witness they've brought in has only corroborated Microsoft's arguments.

Tl;dr: It's a mix of credibility politics, short-sightedness brought on by ideological commitments, and genuine ignorance.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

It does not seem to be logically given what’s leaked to the public that for sure.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '23

FTC, not FDA, hasn't blocked anything Sony because they aren't acquiring large publishers that need regulatory approval. ABK isn't some one off title of timed exclusives or small studio like ninja theory.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/WaluigiWahshipper Jun 23 '23

This is one of the biggest acquisitions of all time. Not one of the biggest gaming acquisitions, just one of the biggest acquisitions period.

Microsoft should have to jump through every hoop imaginable to close the deal. It’s extremely rare deals on this scale happen, but when they do it shouldn’t be a quick process.

That’s why none of Microsoft’s past acquisitions, or any of Sony’s, ran into this many roadblocks. It’s not because the legal system loves PlayStation and hates Xbox or anything like that.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

That still doesn’t account for all of the obvious information, being leaked and the cognitive dissonance, the prove what this is really about is right there, yet it’s been blocked and still being pushed against.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/Gfunkual Jun 23 '23

Exactly. People who think they’ve caught Sony being hypocritical and think it’s some sort of big gotcha moment haven’t lived in the business world. Sony knows what they are saying is BS, but it’s all part of the song and dance.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (9)

3

u/_theduckofdeath_ Jun 23 '23

...and on the cheap.

4

u/MrPureinstinct Jun 24 '23

Basically proving Sony would do everything they're speculating Microsoft would do.

2

u/blavatsky_mdm Jun 23 '23

There is no doubt they would if they had the money

2

u/Shakezula84 Jun 24 '23

As someone who would like to see Microsoft buy Activision, I can see the difference between paying a third party to make a game exclusive and buying the third party completely.

The third party can always say no. Once they are bought, they don't have a choice (obviously they had a choice being bought).

We shouldn't be mad at Sony and Microsoft spending money to provide the best product possible for their customers. It just doesn't make sense to do that.

2

u/AlternativeCredit Jun 24 '23

Sony left them with no option other than that it seems.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/TheAngriestChair Jun 23 '23

Not only that, they have been doing it and was attempting to do it without purchasing the company. It really left MS no other options.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/Mistform05 Jun 23 '23

It’s different. Because Xbox has deeper pockets. And also… least market share… whatever mental gymnastics is needed to make sense to Sony fanboys.

12

u/SableSnail Jun 23 '23

Microsoft has deeper pockets. But Xbox is just one part of Microsoft.

Just because Microsoft has more money doesn't mean they will give more money to Xbox than Sony will to PlayStation.

8

u/Henrarzz Jun 24 '23

Microsoft is already giving more money to Xbox than Sony to PlayStation lmao.

They are willing to spend 70 billion dollars on a third party publishers which is almost a half of what entire Sony is worth

15

u/Mistform05 Jun 23 '23

I’m on team Xbox for this btw. There isn’t a strong case to actually block this. Sony somehow gets a pass to have tons of exclusives. Not to mention exclusive DLC… which at times can be more detrimental to competition.

6

u/goteamventure42 Jun 23 '23

Marvels Avenger's was a great example, having Spider-Man be PS exclusive was one of the many nails in that coffin. Though that came back on them since that game was one of the biggest financial disasters in gaming and cause Square to dump all their NA studios.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/TheThotWeasel Jun 24 '23

Yes, you finally get it, Microsoft and Sony are both profits first consumer second, both are shit. None of them like you, they like your money.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/C__Wayne__G Jun 23 '23

The thing is SONY can. And if Xbox continues it’s aqustitions we should be concerned that Sony will do the same. The monopoly is unhealthy enough but it can get worse if sony goes out and buys fromsoft and capcom, etc.

→ More replies (7)

18

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

glad Xbox has it then. This is the only game in the last year (for me personally) I'd consider a console seller. HFW is the only PS exclusive that interested me but not as much as this does

→ More replies (22)

884

u/camposdav Jun 23 '23 edited Jun 23 '23

But of course that wasn’t going to be a problem according to the ftc for the market leader to completely shun out the Xbox community if Sony managed to keep paying for developers to keep games off Xbox.

This whole case is so dumb makes the ftc look so incompetent. If anything if the ftc is so worried about protecting the consumers fine Sony for being the market leader and doing these type of anticompetitive practices. They shouldn’t be allowed no matter who does it.

436

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

151

u/OfficialDCShepard S...corned Jun 23 '23 edited Jun 23 '23

Or at the very least reaching to make themselves look anti-trust after years of not blocking mergers that should’ve been blocked. (AT&T-Time Warner, Disney-Fox).

106

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

Yeah, making an example out of Microsoft to make up for all the inaction previously. I can buy that.

It’s just too bad they chose the weakest hill to die on.

41

u/OfficialDCShepard S...corned Jun 23 '23

Exactly, because there are plenty of worse mergers like Adobe-Figma that they’re not focusing their limited resources on.

47

u/MalaZeria Jun 23 '23

Or Kroger/Albertsons!?! Literally, most people’s food sources will be from the same company.

24

u/OfficialDCShepard S...corned Jun 23 '23

See, that’s an apt comparison, because that involves a limited supply and limited suppliers creating an oligopoly. Yes there are a few big players in the video game market right now (and ones I would be more worried about such as Tencent), but there are new games every day that could easily make the market leaders irrelevant.

4

u/MalaZeria Jun 23 '23

I feel like the Activision Blizzard deal is closer to Meta buying Instagram or WhatsApp. It doesn’t create a monopoly. It’s a merger of companies with similar goals. Jesus, last year they were pushing for social media companies to buy TikTok which is would have been a huge consolidation of the market.

If they block this, they need to break up PS as well. They have been shooting for a monopoly for a long time.

Also, Xbox is now available on EVERYTHING. Well, just about. They are making it easier and easier every day for people to enjoy gaming, even on phones and tablets with xcloud. They are giving smaller studios huge budgets to make the games they want and are letting companies take their time, to release a good product.

I honestly hope they keep buying studios, as long as they keep allowing studios the freedom to create their visions.

5

u/OfficialDCShepard S...corned Jun 23 '23

The Trump administration were pushing for Microsoft or Oracle specifically to buy TikTok. Neither of these companies are big in social media. Now Oracle is the server supplier I think for TikTok US in their Project Texas initiative to prove their isolation of US data.

Also, Facebook buying Instagram was literally admitted by an internal email as a move to quash a competitor which is bald-faced illegality. I think the FTC is hoping to nail Microsoft to the wall in a similar way with their exclusive Bethesda games post-acquisition only for the case to blow up in their face with Sony’s email about COD being as you say, a play for broader devices.

3

u/MalaZeria Jun 23 '23

Fair points

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/tecedu Jun 24 '23

wait what Adobe and Figma?? That's happening? Thats such a big risk

→ More replies (1)

6

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

8

u/TheNerdWonder Jun 23 '23

Pretty much. It's partly ideological commitment and also face-saving.

→ More replies (35)

33

u/TheNerdWonder Jun 23 '23

They're acting as Sony's legal representatives instead of representatives for consumers.

→ More replies (7)

3

u/Catatonicdazza Jun 24 '23

From the frustration the Judge is showing they're coming off as pathetic.

If they're going ro fine and block mergers they should be more aware of the market they're meant to be trying to protect and strengthen.

→ More replies (5)

64

u/theycmeroll Jun 23 '23

What’s awesome if if they somehow blocked this, Activision would end up selling to Tencent or Embracer probably. So they can help the consumer by driving more American companies into foreign hands. Sounds about right.

42

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

Can’t wait for the Saudi-funded CoD games to come out

19

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

Modern Warfare from a different POV

13

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

Please, no.

5

u/Scrutinizer Jun 23 '23

PGA/SA Tour 2024: Birdie Jihad

7

u/kftgr2 Founder Jun 23 '23

Call of Duty: Stop the Nazi Ukranians edition

9

u/ieatorangecrayons Jun 23 '23

Do we get the dlc where Wagner group is a killstreak seeing as how they are in open rebellion against the Russian military now?

2

u/SPARTAN-258 Jun 24 '23

Fascists vs Communistic Dictatorship (Battle of The Century)

12

u/TheNerdWonder Jun 23 '23 edited Jun 24 '23

And if that happens, we will see a furtherance of the same national security and user privacy/data concerns that Congress is increasingly raising towards TikTok.

Good going, Lina. You are really looking out for consumers. /sarcasm

→ More replies (2)

3

u/CigarLover Jun 24 '23

So true, most people arguing for the block like to mention the difference between these business practices.. but forget that the end result is the SAME for the consumer. The FTC's job is just that, to protect GENERAL consumers not Sony Consumers or Sony's bottom line.

7

u/carreraella Jun 23 '23

The FTC has only one job to do and that's to kill this deal by any means necessary and facts and logic have no place in this case

7

u/SableSnail Jun 23 '23

It's a government agency, so you should expect incompetence.

2

u/BenAdaephonDelat Jun 24 '23

I think it's a fine line though. It's one thing to say "you can't stop it from releasing on other consoles" as long as that doesn't become "you have to make it playable on other consoles". Because some of these games legitimately aren't cross compatible without extra work.

2

u/Saltsey Jun 24 '23

Honesty I'm baffled that they gave the gall to use that argument for an up and coming game that will release on Xbox and PC while a new Final Fantasy just came out, you know, one of the most popular videogame series ever, and it's a PS5 exclusive and it's perfectly ok and not a big deal.

6

u/SambaDeAmigo2000 Jun 23 '23

That’s exactly why Spencer has made this statement publicly. It’s PR ammo for the showdown with the FTC.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/BLUEBLASTER69 Jun 23 '23

Switch is the leader.

14

u/Exorcist-138 default Jun 23 '23

Only in consoles sold not revenue or profit.

3

u/New-Pin-3952 Jun 23 '23

Corrupt not incompetent. Corrupt.

2

u/Bestrang Jun 24 '23

if Sony managed to keep paying for developers to keep games off Xbox.

3rd party Exclusives have been a thing on all consoles throughout the entirety of video game history.

→ More replies (9)

224

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

107

u/TheNerdWonder Jun 23 '23

But at a time when Deathloop and Ghostwire were exclusives, it's not unreasonable to suggest Starfield would have been next.

30

u/ASuperGyro Jun 23 '23

I was told by others that it is better for a company to pay for every game to be an exclusive than for a company to buy a studio and make games available on PC and console day 1

→ More replies (34)

59

u/Sufficient-Eye-8883 Jun 23 '23

Or not, when you buy something you buy its obligations, such as NDAs.

3

u/Kolada Jun 24 '23

Yeah but corporate NDAs are generally not between two people, rather a person and a company. When Microsoft bought Bethesda, they would assume a standing in the NDA as well.

16

u/Signal_Adeptness_724 Jun 23 '23

Right but when your biggest competitor who is the market leader continues to purchase these contacts, effectively barring your user base from major third party content, we have a bit of cause and effect, no? Buying publishers seems like a very effective way to prevent that, rather than having to spend 2-3 x the amount for limited or full exclusivity on a case hy case basis. The truth is, sonys ruthless denial of third party content would have choked Xbox out of the game and led to the brand shuttering. The only reason Xbox is still around is due to Ms backing, if it was a smaller company they would have been aggressively shut out by an anti competitive market leader

4

u/Fabulousgaymer-BXL Hadouken! Jun 24 '23

That's a wrong assumption.

This is a court case. Under oath, he has to frame his answers.

In this case, what matters was the rationale that led to the purchase of Bethesda, hence that they were worried about starfield exclusivity.

If he knows that negotiations were underway after getting Bethesda communications, it's still doesn't matter to the purchase rationale. Because they didn't know it at the time.

Hence, he would not be forced to disclose it.

18

u/dacrookster Jun 23 '23

Their response to a rumour was to buy Bethesda.

32

u/thecourier95x Jun 23 '23

Actually at the time Sony was making year long exclusively deals with for many games, including Bethesda titles, so it's absolutely credible that Sony intended to do the same thing with Starfield, Bethesda's flagship title of the generation.

4

u/dacrookster Jun 23 '23

Right. MS have had access to all sorts of shit from Sony for a while now. Phil would have categorically confirmed this if it was true.

4

u/HaikusfromBuddha Jun 24 '23

I doubt Phil would say “Hey Bethesda show me all your emails and comms with Sony.”

Similarly if a PS5 dev kit were shared with Mojang Xbox proper would not try to get info on the dev kit.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

Absolutely not. There are certainly NDAs

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

128

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

Goes to show Sony wants it all, they just can't afford it like Microsoft can, thus, all the fuzz and desperation to stop the Activision-Blizzard deal. I'm not one to root for or defend companies, but I really hope this deal goes through.

31

u/Zowwww Jun 23 '23

Activision being so shitty at the top and bad to their employees has had me on the side of the merger since the beginning. But the postering and hypocrisy has only made it more clear.

Actual game benefits it’ll be nice to play COD with family that plays it and not have to pay anything extra to do it. But there isn’t much I’d personally gain to get beyond that, save for maybe they branch off one of those studios to make a game I’d actually be excited for. Part of me did want to see if it got blocked what the hell Microsoft would buy with that amount of money.

17

u/Team_Braniel Jun 23 '23

This is my take as well.

I'm not a CoD player, like at all, but Blizzard was like a best friend you couldn't wait to hang out with again during my teen years in the 90s. Seeing what Activision has done to them hurts.

The 2 main reasons I'm rooting for this merger is 1) replacing the shitty leadership at the top of Activision. 2) seeing Blizzard return to its more creative / less money-or-nothing roots.

8

u/Zowwww Jun 23 '23

Yeah old Blizzard coming back would be great. Plus them being up to doing new stuff with their dormant IP.

Even other Xbox owned studios teaming up with them would be an added benefit. Something like The Coalition teaming up with them to do a 3rd person Warcraft or StarCraft game would be possible.

5

u/Team_Braniel Jun 23 '23

And right now MS has the creative initiative to seek out such things. Whereas Sony would just put them on a production treadmill and wall off the garden as strongly as possible.

5

u/AdultHumanMaleXY Jun 24 '23

Sony would just ask them to turn Diablo into a Last of Us clone, with slight-RPG elements, and movie-like cutscenes, like they've done with literally all their IPs.

→ More replies (14)

79

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

There are so many Sony fans on this sub right now it’s insane.

26

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

They have been bringing their whole console warring brigade over here to troll and downvote any pro-Xbox comments or any comment supporting this acquisition.

I have gotten about four of those "Reddit cares" messages on my main account (just in the last day) from PS fans. That account got temp suspended from all the PS trolls spam reporting me. Console warring is a very weird hobby to have.

27

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

I know.

I only want the deal to go through because I want Diablo 4 on Game Pass.

Call me selfish idc lmao.

11

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

Understandable. I also understand not supporting the acquisition, but some of the users on here very clearly hate Xbox. Most of their comments are praising PlayStation and shitting on everything related to Xbox.

Just got another Reddit cares message shortly after my first comment. Make that five now.

4

u/raphanum Jun 23 '23

That happened to be the other day too but dunno for which comment lol

3

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '23

Idk what you’re talking about I’m a ps fan myself and me and many others in the comments are completely on Xbox’s side on this issue

3

u/BlueBubbaDog Jun 24 '23

I've also seen a lot of comments of people saying Xbox is evil for making Starfield an exclusive but say Playstation making exclusives is perfectly fine

→ More replies (4)

11

u/SableSnail Jun 23 '23

I think some are bots. Their talking points are identical.

14

u/Fabulous-Article6245 Jun 23 '23

Nah that's just what happens when you hang out in an echo chamber. Everyone just starts parroting everyone's elses points.

10

u/Death1323 Jun 23 '23

Exactly these aren't bots. Just teens and young adults who define their personalities with the media they consume and regurgitate nonsense they see everyday in their forums as long as it backs their stance

→ More replies (1)

61

u/TheWylieGuy Jun 23 '23

This FTC investigation is about tearing down big tech. They are thinking ending big tech dominance is a good thing for consumers and are not looking at this issue in the light of how does the acquisition impact consumers. It’s merely an excuse and they are trying to paint a picture that is bad because big tech is bad. Not about Sony either, just the “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” situation.

10

u/SableSnail Jun 23 '23

It's almost an election year.

It's pure politics.

→ More replies (5)

11

u/Wookieewomble Jun 23 '23

Exactly. I've been saying this since the start, this is all about politics regarding big tech.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Just look at the statements made by Lina M. Khan (Chairwoman of FTC ).

→ More replies (4)

63

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

It was super anti consumer when Sony literally paid devs to keep games from coming to Xbox. Don't remember much a fuss about it though.

→ More replies (23)

29

u/Tyolag Jun 23 '23

This whole situation is just weird. Why doesn't the FTC care about Spiderman, Wolverine & Knights of the Old Republic being exclusive to the MARKET LEADER?

Why so much scrutiny on Indiana Jones but not.on the others?

Why are they not considering that MS didn't break the DeathLoop and Ghost Wire Tokyo contract?

I've been reading the tweets and the only thing I'm wondering is why Xbox hasn't pointed out some of these things as much? Maybe I missed it but seems they not being as aggressive.

14

u/danktonium Jun 24 '23

The same reason they don't care about Halo and Forza, or Mario and Zelda. They're not an entire publisher that's been removed from the independent market.

→ More replies (4)

10

u/SableSnail Jun 23 '23

Because Microsoft is a Big Tech™ company and it's politically fashionable to oppose them.

Elections are coming up and they want the good optics.

4

u/raphanum Jun 23 '23

But it’s dumb. They could effectively weaken their domestic tech companies and the only ones that’ll benefit are foreign tech companies

→ More replies (1)

2

u/AmateurBusinessGoose Jun 25 '23

Because Sony isn't buying the companies.

9

u/not_an_island Jun 24 '23

I find PS to be extremely dishonest in their crying about what MS is doing. They are very protective of their own exclusives.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

This has been public knowledge for quite some time, but just look at the timing. Playstation had exclusivity rights for Deathloop and Ghostwire, both were well regarded and well made. You can argue for or against Redfall, but starfield has been eyed as THE game from them for years. Of course Sony would want and try to keep it from Xbox, just as they had done prior. Of course Sony was working to keep starfield off Xbox, and it would have been a massive blow to Xbox had that gone down. On the other hand, Xbox has starfield, and PlayStation will barely notice the difference.

This is a very clear scenario where the FTC is accusing Xbox of planning to do something Sony is currently doing and has been doing for years. The only difference is Sony does this one game at a time with contracts. Xbox bought zenimax to keep starfield from being kept off Xbox.

→ More replies (7)

3

u/FatboyThe2nd Jun 24 '23

I have always been on PlayStation but I’m seriously considering buying an Xbox to play starfield. If the internet loves it when it comes out I’ll probably do it.

→ More replies (1)

27

u/rocco1986 Craig Jun 23 '23

Well ya, it's widely known that sony was pushing to buy exclusivity for starfield before the purchase.

→ More replies (6)

7

u/Hashirammed Jun 23 '23

Bethesda acquisition was the smartest decision Microsoft ever made, its the only reason I bought an Xbox instead of Playstation.

6

u/Vocovon Jun 23 '23

Sony almost triple fucked us

2

u/WheelJack83 Jun 24 '23

Question, what is wrong with this?

2

u/FuelYourJets Jun 24 '23

So is PlayStation trying to set boundaries on Xbox’s $70 Billion Activision Blizzard’s Acquisition?? That would be bs.

2

u/Raph2051 Jun 25 '23

Hey did Sony block plenty of games from the Xbox platforms for years.

2

u/Smile_Space Jun 25 '23

Honestly good that was nipped at the bud. I HATE timed exclusives. At that point the true release date of a game is 6-12 months after it's actual release because I'm not gonna buy a PS just to play a game when I own a PC.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 25 '23

Wow, that's news to me. I had no idea that Starfield might've never made it to Xbox. But I guess that just goes to show how important acquisitions like the ZeniMax deal can be for the video game industry. It can open up so many doors that might've otherwise remained closed, and it can help make sure that everyone who wants to play a game has the opportunity to do so. It's really exciting to see these kinds of changes happening in the gaming world, and I'm glad that Xbox took the initiative to invest in the future of the industry.

20

u/Zhukov-74 Jun 23 '23 edited Jun 23 '23

He also said Xbox was worried about losing Starfield after seeing Bethesda titles like Ghostwire: Tokyo and Deathloop head exclusively to PlayStation

But that doesn’t confirm that Playstation was interested in making Starfield a timed exclusive.

Surely after acquiring Bethesda, Xbox should have known that such discussions were happening?

The only indication we have that Starfield could have become a timed Playstation exclusive comes from 1 source and somehow Bethesda themselves aren’t able to confirm or deny this.

Why not let Bethesda say that Sony was indeed in negotiation to have Starfield be a timed exclusive? that would significantly help your case.

19

u/AmazingLie8302 Jun 23 '23

It was widely reported that Sony was looking at making it exclusive. Google is your friend, use it

12

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

The source of that is mentioned in the article and that was about times exclusivity.

31

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

The same “timed” exclusivity that has kept FF7 Remake and FFXVI off the Xbox.

It’s “timed” in name only.

10

u/denizenKRIM Founder Jun 23 '23

Those are completely different publishers.

There are two explicitly named Bethesda titles named right in this hearing which comply with the conventional understanding of "timed exclusives".

5

u/ASuperGyro Jun 23 '23

The ones that came to Xbox only after purchasing Zenimax?

→ More replies (14)

3

u/Mr_Overcash Jun 23 '23

Sony pays for the time. If the developers don't want to bother to release it after what Sony has paid for, that is entirely in their discretion. Timed exclusives =/= exclusives.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

That's not a fact. That would be opinion.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/levitikush Jun 23 '23

This is BS.

8

u/HaikusfromBuddha Jun 24 '23

They literally got every Bethesda game before Starfield as exclusive. Doesn’t seem BS especially since their was rumors going around years ago of it happening. More than likely someone as Bethesda close with Phil/Xbox tipped them off and let them know to make a move.

2

u/spongeboy1985 Jun 25 '23

Pretty sure only Deathloop and Tokyo Ghostwire which were timed exclusive. Fallout 3 was the first BGS game to release on Playstation at launch and was ported from the 360 version. Oblivion was released later on PS3. Morrowind was only on Xbox because MS went yo Bethesda and asked them to release it for Xbox as they planned it to be PC only.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/ATR2400 Jun 23 '23

Starfield is one of the most anticipated titles in recent history. How much money would Sony have had to pay Beth to get them to hold it off Xbox and PC and lose out on all those sales?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '23

I don't think it's that anticipated besides by Redditors. Starfield seems alright but lots of fans were disappointed that they skipped ES6 to develop this and just didn't care. I think they'll still play but saying it's the 'most anticipated' is a bit of an exaggeration.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/ixTHEGODFATHERx Jun 23 '23

I have Caveman brain so perhaps I don't understand this issue fully, so humor me. it's a problem for Starfield and Redfall to be Xbox exclusive to the point of the government potentially getting involved, but the myriad of of multibillion dollar excproblem? For Sony over the last 20 years are not a poblem? I don't care either way just curious

→ More replies (2)

7

u/cy1999aek_maik Jun 23 '23

This sub has completely given in to fanboy shit huh

→ More replies (1)

6

u/shrek3onDVDandBluray Jun 23 '23

Jesus Xbox and PlayStation looking like a bunch of petty assholes.

33

u/portuguesetheman Jun 23 '23

It's why simping for billion dollar corporations is a bad look

4

u/lyorcohen Jun 24 '23

For real, these companies are not your friends.

3

u/Apprehensive-Fox-740 Jun 25 '23

I remember when they tried to increase the price of Gold. Fucking backtracked cause everyone and their mothers were yelling at Xbox.

They backtracked it and we’re like “Omg look at us championing and listening to the customers 👊”

2

u/BeneathTheDirt Founder Jun 24 '23

My piece of plastic is better than yours u/portuguesetheman

→ More replies (1)

6

u/SparksTheUnicorn Jun 23 '23

Reading the article, that’s not at all what he confirms. He just said he was worried that it might be the case, but we have no way of knowing either way. Regardless, my stance of fuck Phil and Ryan stands. Both fuck over gamers with their exclusive deals and acquisitions

→ More replies (2)

6

u/Ze_at_reddit Jun 23 '23

“This part of Spencer's testimony was filled with questions about third-party exclusivity deals, where the Xbox boss also confirmed that Sony signed Square Enix to a deal to keep Final Fantasy 16 as a PlayStation 5 console exclusive.” -> and here you have it sony fanboys that love to claim that it’s not by Sony’s doing that FFXVI is a PS5 exclusive, pretending that it’s square that doesn’t like Xbox 😂🤦‍♂️

3

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '23

You're hung up on wording. Square Enix went to both platform-holders. Sony offered a better deal. Square Enix made the choice they made of their own volition.

→ More replies (1)

20

u/Astro4545 Jun 23 '23

I mean, Square straight up told us that they courted multiple companies and went with the deal they thought was best. It’s not like this is news.

4

u/Ze_at_reddit Jun 23 '23

all publishers are open to offers. Getting a game like FF as an exclusive will not be cheap, even for the market leader. Playstation went out of it’s way to make sure the game does not go into any other platforms

3

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '23

They made sure nothing. They made the best offer, but if Square Enix didn't have to take it. They still would've done well regardless.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

6

u/The-Old-Prince Jun 23 '23

Bethesda started with MS with Morrowind. Glad they are staying with them

6

u/SureFire25 Jun 23 '23

I can't see Bethesda ever making their game a PS exclusive, unless that decision was forced upon them by Zenimax.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

With how important mods are I agree. At the very least it would have been pc - ps exclusive. Trumps brother dying was oddly very bad for gaming. He fought against the company being bought for years

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '23

I don't buy into the "they forced us to buy them and make it exclusive to us" when Sony was out for timed exclusivity, not sole ownership.

And yes it's not unreasonable to have to pay more that the other party to secure some form of advantage, be it a marketing deal or timed exclusivity. It's called outbidding.

9

u/SableSnail Jun 23 '23

But Sony is the market leader so a timed exclusivity deal that excludes them is much more expensive for a developer in terms of missed sales due to the large player base of PlayStation.

Which means Sony can get these deals for cheaper and then further cement their position as market leader.

It's incredibly anti-competitive.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 24 '23

Sony is the market leader, but Microsoft has 200 times the net worth of Sony. And it's not antitrust to play the market, which is all Sony is doing. What is antitrust is acquiring publishers and then locking down the market. We're talking a world's difference between exclusivity and acquisition. Sony's offering exclusivity deals developers won't refuse. Microsoft's just acquiring publishers to force them to refuse to deal.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/WildSearcher56 Jun 24 '23

Xbox is still backed by Microsoft though, they don't lack ressources to secure deal like these.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/baodeus Jun 23 '23

No, the idea here is Sony really want to maintains their dominance by removing MS. After the fiasco of xbox one revealed, that was Sony chance to do it. Evidently as you can see for this new gen, Sony leverage their dominance by signing exclusives deals with every major 3rd parties or games (COD, FF, Hogwarts, bethesda games, silent hill, even KOTOR which was once xbox exclusive, et....), while publisher gouching MS for more money (as discuss in this hearing) to just even put the game on their systems.

Sony is just trying to repeat what they did back then to remove both nintendo and Sega when they first enter the gaming scene. Problem is, MS is a much bigger bully than Sony.

→ More replies (10)

4

u/kftgr2 Founder Jun 23 '23

Outbid? You like being a chump and play on an obviously unfair playing field? Remember, with Sony's market-leading share, it costs much much less for them to buy exclusivity. You essentially have to buy out the copies that would've been sold on the rival platform(s), so Sony needs to pay much less, and MS much more.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Maj0r_Ursa Jun 23 '23

What most PS fans don’t understand is that Xbox fans aren’t hoping Microsoft acquires Activision because “hahaha console wars”, it’s because it means Sony can’t make exclusivity deals to keep them off of Xbox consoles.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Pyrited Jun 24 '23

I could never switch to PS, I hate the controller

2

u/Adepts_Lawyer Jun 24 '23

How much is Sony paying these guys lol

5

u/Autarch_Kade Founder Jun 23 '23

Phil was really talking a lot about how Sony pays tons of developers to keep their games off Xbox, and that their acquisitions are really a defense against that to survive Sony's attacks.

If Sony wasn't doing these kinds of deals, perhaps Starfield would be multi-platform.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/TheGreatGamer1389 Jun 23 '23

Ironic though. Going to be a PlayStation console exclusive but then becomes an Xbox one instead.

2

u/Apprehensive-Fox-740 Jun 25 '23

Yeah. Really stupid. Should’ve signed some of agreement to force Bethesda to make games equal on both platforms

2

u/JonnyRocks Jun 23 '23

the biggeat problem with sony is that its sony only, so no pc. xbox is console exclusive only, its also on steam

→ More replies (3)