Discussion in 'Video Games and Technology' started by AnonymousDwell, Sep 21, 2020.
Boom more studios aquistion to come from the tweet Microsoft CEO.
"Home made" as in first party titles, meaning they are published by Sony. If Sony owns them, they are Sony studios. Why would they put exclusives like The Last of Us, God of War, Spider-Man, Horizon, etc, on other consoles? You don't see Nintendo porting Mario, Zelda, DKC, Smash Bros, etc to Playstation and X-Box do you?
I think Bethesda's games suck. They are way too open for their own good, the main characters have little to no personality or dialog, and then they always have to add in some utter nonsense like, "You're carrying too many items, so now you can only move at half speed" bullshit. Fallout New Vegas, 4, and Oblivion are some of the most tedious games I have tried out in the last decade or so.
People complain that Ubisoft makes all of their open world with a lot of icons on the map, but then they ignore all of the garbage polluting the Bethesday games.
And Sony buying studios is a good thing as it makes their console have games worth getting the console for. This has been apart of gaming since its inception, why does it suddenly matter now?
If Microsoft had games worth buying, I'd buy their console too.
I didn't shit on anyone's opinion. The fuck are you talking about?
So I'm wondering...MS was looking to aquire the WB game companies before which didn't end up happening. Was this aquisition also looked at during the same time. Would this aquisition have happened if they did aquire the WB companies.
I'm gonna go with yes on that. MS have got allot of money to throw around right now and Bethesda's assets are pretty much a perfect fit for the Xbox brand since they largely align with what it was built on in it's earlier years. Namely FPS games and being the place to go for western RPGs if you can't afford PC. Arkane also gives them another solid but underserved RPG-adjacent niche with Immersive Sims and Tango gives them a development presence in Japan that was entirely missing before.
People keep saying what is Xbox for other then Halo/Gears/Forza and WRPGs is going to be the big answer to that again. They already have Obsidian and are scaling them back up to AA/AAA, they have inExile to fill the CRPG niche and who could also be scaled up over time, they have the new Playground team working on Fable and now they have Bethesda Softworks as well. That only really leaves CDPR, Larian and (if they get their shit back together) Bioware as notable established studios in that genre that aren't in their pocket.
Also worth noting that RPGs are a huge time sink and hence line up pretty well with the gamepass strategy.
^ And EA Play (there's Bioware) is also coming to Game Pass. I agree that that's their strategy. (In fact looking at it... these two announcements were 12 days apart. Get EA Play with Xbox Game Pass for No Additional Cost - Xbox Wire )
I just wish they would release xcloud app for the Xbox. PC
Surely you see how that works both ways though. What with Sony fanbois who used to gloat about PS exclusives now complaining that Microsoft might snatch up more exclusives for Xbox?
Seeing anyone cheer this acquisition blows my mind, unless it's some console wars bullshit. Consolidation on this level is worrying, especially with Microsoft's stated intent to buy more. And it's not just bad if MS does it either, if Sony has deals lined up to buy say Square or Capcom, that's pretty fucked too. It eats away at third party development and gives you less options for where to play the games you want. Additionally, with MS pushing game pass, you don't even own anything you're consuming. For some people that might not matter, but for me it definitely does.
Buying historically multiplatform IPs and locking them up on your hardware is not the same as not letting God of War not be on the Xbox. Santa Monica Studio was built by Sony for first party development. Even an acquisition like Insomniac isn't the really on the same level. You can count the amount of console games Insomniac made, that weren't Playstation titles, on one hand. Still arguably not super great, but the impact is orders of magnitude smaller.
Sony has done a lot of bullshit money-hatting this gen. But none of it cut you off from that developers other IPs and in many cases it didn't even cut you off from that particular game long term.
There's no reason to believe MS are going to make these games exclusive (so far.)
That said, having no platform loyalty makes these discussions simultaneously entertaining and disconcerting.
I guess? My point still stands. It’s throughly entertaining that the folks who have long said Sony is anti-consumer and greedy for making a superhero game PS4 exclusive and that “exclusives don’t matter anyway because they’re anti-consumer” are now telling me that I must accept that multiple multi-platform games are about to become Xbox exclusive.
However, I feel there’s a difference between Sony building their own studios for their first party games (as @Juraash said, they built Santa Monica Studio for first party development) and Microsoft straight up buying a third party studio and potentially making multiple multi-platform games Xbox exclusive. I’m not a PlayStation fanboy by any means, but, and I’m sorry, PlayStation fans have every right to be worried. I don’t think they should be panicking, per se, but they should be worried.
Microsoft just forked out $7.5 billion. While that’s pocket change to them, there’s no reason to believe that they aren’t going to potentially make games like DOOM, Elder Scrolls 6, and Fallout console exclusive. At the very least, I expect a time exclusivity of one year.
Bot only that, but they could’ve simply offered Bethesda day 1 on game pass like they did with EA, but they bought them instead.
I hope they still come out on PC
... is functionally interchangeable with what I said. That there's no reason to believe they are. We don't know either way and won't for a while yet.
Anyway like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just observing and discussing it all bemusedly and detachedly from afar in the context of wider industry implications, not as a user worried about whether he'll still have access to X or Y game, personally. Much bigger things for me to be worrying about currently.
Let me preface this by stating I don't have any attachment to either Microsoft or Sony. I own both a PS2 and Xbox, and PS3 and X360.
The reason I'm not a fan of this development is that I'm no longer in a position where I can afford both Sony's and Microsoft's hardware. I only just was able to afford a used PS4 last year, and the reason I chose it over the XB1 (other than because I personally find Sony's hardware to be more reliable) is because XB1 had no exclusives that interested me. All the games I wanted were on PS4.
Depending on what happens with the console-exclusive game situation, this acquisition may have exactly the effect on me Microsoft is hoping: I'll need to get both consoles to enjoy everything the next generation has to offer. Which sucks for me, because I'll likely have to choose one over the other.
I'm not saying that this is a good or a bad thing, incidentally. For the record, I think the most pro-consumer outcome would be for all hardware and all services to offer all games, period. Unfortunately, that's just not the world we live in, and we already have to make those choices with existing console exclusives. It has always been that way.
Can we play the latest Mario or Zelda without a Switch? Can I play Ghost of Tsushima, Gran Turismo, Uncharted, God of War, LBP, Dreams, Infamous, or TLOU, without a Playstation? I certainly can't afford to own every platform either. There are entire slates of games I just go without because they are luxuries and not necessities. But it has been this way for the entirety of the 40 years I've played games.
This is why, personally, I'm more interested in this from an industry implications standpoint. And in that larger context, the silver lining here is that we now have more options than we did before. Horizon Zero Dawn having a PC port for instance is not something we would have seen in the past. Halo MMC and Infinite being released on PC. Things like Game Pass + XCloud meaning people actually don't have to buy an Xbox to play first party Xbox games (and many others.) And of course, the plethora of other lower cost options available today via indies, store sales, and other features we didn't have in the past.
Now, as I said, I'm not saying this a good or a bad thing, and obviously if someone lacks a PC, good internet connection, and the ability to buy a PS5 or an Xbox or a Switch, then those people are simply locked out of any game not on their platform of choice. But ... again... that's always been the case. The difference here is that MS is acquiring a studio with a long history of multiplatform releases, but again... until we have clear reason to positively assume they are going to start making those games (large portions of whose audiences are on Playstation, Switch, and Windows) I'm not going to worry. Especially not when the above options exist, whereas before they didn't.
Honestly, by a decade from now, I will be very surprised if Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony alike haven't increased the number of first party exclusives that actually go multiplatform or streaming service based (which will extend them to other platforms as a matter of course, as services replace hardware) rather than restrict the number of games that are multiplatform even further. And I expect other major publishers without hardware platforms to do the same honestly.
Whether we like it or not, the future of gaming, in some form, is going to be service-based. Nintendo will probably be the last to fully embrace this new reality, as their business model and even game design philosophy is much more tied to their own proprietary hardware than to a consideration of industry standard and market norms. But that pressure will only grow over time, just as pressure from mobile forced them to eventually abandon dedicated handhelds despite having dominated that space.
So... do you guys think exclusives are anti-consumer?
Not because I am a huge Xbox guy, but it locks players out of certain games just because they don't own certain hardware.
It's not that simple and never has been.
First/Second party exclusives are a necessary part of the business because games sell consoles and if consoles don't have games that people want that they can't get elsewhere than most people won't buy them. The result of that is less platforms and less platforms is definitely bad for consumers.
Some third party games are exclusive or not on all platforms out of necessity. Either the developers don't the the resources to release on everything, certain platforms don't have enough of a market for certain types of games to justify a release or certain platforms aren't suitable/capable for them. Games not being made or released just because they can't come out on everything is bad for consumers.
Platform holders moneyhatting third party games that would otherwise release and do good business on other platforms? Definitely unnecessary and anti-consumer.
Platform holders buying studios or publishers to make their games first party exclusives and/or add value to their platform? Depends on circumstances.
Phil keep buying studio and high quality studios, I love seeing Sony fanboys get angry and upset, maybe Bungie, maybe CDPR, EA and Microsoft are starting to get cozy.
I could see them buying EA.
I don't really see anyone acquiring EA anytime soon. They're estimated to be valued at 22 bn. Bungie they made an offer (MS did,) but they couldn't meet Bungie's price. So I doubt they're going to shell out 22 bn for EA. And I doubt CDPR will ever be open to an acquisition given their position on DRM. Which for better or worse is now part of their brand essentially. They're also just in a good position and have GOG etc. I actually see CDPR as one of the companies that will be part of the future multi-service landscape as hardware platforms become replaced by software platforms.
As others have said, I also don't really want to be in the position of celebrating consolidation of this sort, either. By the same token, I just also don't see it as the end of the world (the MS Zenimax deal that is.) I am basically just reserving judgment. I can see this playing out in a way that's positive for all concerned. Or they could go very draconian with it. Personally, I don't think they want the bad optics that would come with that though. And I also suspect it doesn't play into their strategy. But we'll see.
Phil Spencer mentions a "case by case basis." So one possibly plausible scenario I can see happening is traditionally multiplatform games with broad multiplatform audiences (Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom, Wolfenstein) could remain multiplatform - possibly with timed exclusivity at worst - but new IPs (Starfield) and IPs that perhaps aren't as broad in their appeal (The Evil Within, Dishonored, Prey) might end up exclusive.
Still not ideal for some but might be a better alternative to going fully exclusive with such a huge stable of beloved IPs, which I am still skeptical that they would attempt. The backlash they would get and the bridges burned with a lot of their audience (which might spill over onto PC just on principle, even though PC players would still have access) just doesn't seem worth it today. Especially for games like Doom which, while popular, aren't exactly games that can afford to alienate their audiences today.
Plus it would just be very odd for them to go from Skyrim being on so many platforms that it's almost become a meme for it to be on everything (they even joked about it running on smart refrigerators in their own conference presentation not long ago lol) to the next Elder Scrolls only being on MS platforms.
Can't wait for the first overly rushed Elder Scrolls game.
Separate names with a comma.