Devolver Debunks Ludicrous Rumour

[Gediminas]

Devolver Debunks Ludicrous Rumour Claiming Sony Paid to Keep Cult of the Lamb Off Xbox Game Pass

Like sheep to slaughter

www.pushsquare.com

''There have been a string of these bad faith rumours of late, none of which make any sense and insist on painting PlayStation in the worst possible light. We’re not saying the organisation’s business practices are perfect – far from it – but we’re not entirely sure why the firm is being heralded as some kind of supervillain when thus far its rival is the only one to buy up an entire publisher and make its output permanently exclusive. Strange.''

 

[adamsapple]

Before anyone gets confused, devolver did not say the quoted parts above, push square, the PS centric website, did.

And the original rumor was put our by Garth Whitta, who has no affiliation with any console maker.

 

[nominedomine]

Maybe once Xbox players get some better games to play on Gamepass they'll have less time to spread false rumors.

So don't expect these false rumors to stop anytime soon.

 

[laynelane]

You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than Twitter. Whitta got his information from an account with 28 followers and it ballooned from there.

 

[Dick Jones]

Gary Whitta. Jesus Christ that's the person who amplified the FUD.

 

[laynelane]

Maybe once Xbox players get some better games to play on Gamepass they'll have less time to spread false rumors.

So don't expect these false rumors to stop anytime soon.

They're just following the leader. It's just shitty when all this FUD pulls an uninvolved developer into the mess.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

The Playstation ambassadors from push square seem to be rather salty.

 

[Dick Jones]

The Playstation ambassadors from push square seem to be rather salty.

Hopefully the Playstation Ambassadors get socks like their counterparts.

 

[adamsapple]

The Playstation ambassadors from push square seem to be rather salty.

The author seems like one of those twitter warriors manifest. This is his top comment on Death Stranding's game pass release (mind you, that was an article that also he himself posted)

The comment is just 5 seconds shy of "KOJIMA IS AN XBOT TRAITOR"

 

[peter42O]

Personally, I believe that Sony does pay to block publishers from putting their games on Game Pass for a limited time but this is connected to games that Sony has marketing deals and whatnot for. It would be funny if Sony paid for marketing like they did RE 8 and all of a sudden, Microsoft comes out of nowhere and get the game day one on Game Pass. It would be a waste of money for Sony and free marketing/advertising for Microsoft.

If I was running Sony, I would include clauses that prevent marketed games from going on Game Pass for a set amount of time. I would do a year, maybe two depending on the game. If anything, it's smart business. It's what Sony should be doing in my opinion.

I don't however believe that Sony pays to block games going on Game Pass in which they have no marketing deal for as that simply wouldn't make any sense because if a game was worth paying money to keep off Game Pass, wouldn't it be worth money to get the marketing deal for it?

 

[Old Gamer]

Maybe once Xbox players get some better games to play on Gamepass they'll have less time to spread false rumors.

So don't expect these false rumors to stop anytime soon.

Worse than the false rumors is the blatant hypocrisy that the article does mention.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Personally, I believe that Sony does pay to block publishers from putting their games on Game Pass for a limited time but this is connected to games that Sony has marketing deals and whatnot for. It would be funny if Sony paid for marketing like they did RE 8 and all of a sudden, Microsoft comes out of nowhere and get the game day one on Game Pass. It would be a waste of money for Sony and free marketing/advertising for Microsoft.

If I was running Sony, I would include clauses that prevent marketed games from going on Game Pass for a set amount of time. I would do a year, maybe two depending on the game. If anything, it's smart business. It's what Sony should be doing in my opinion.

I don't however believe that Sony pays to block games going on Game Pass in which they have no marketing deal for as that simply wouldn't make any sense because if a game was worth paying money to keep off Game Pass, wouldn't it be worth money to get the marketing deal for it?

This is exactly the full extent of this whole "drama", and it's more or less a nothingburger. Microsoft knows this as well but for whatever reason, they presented it as argument in the court case knowing other people would take their own interpretations and spread misinformation and narratives around it.

Very disappointing they would do such a thing, although strategically I get it: they need to make Sony look like an unfair player that way it's easier to get the ABK deal approved with as few (if any) strings attached as possible.

Oh and uh...slight correction to the statement in the OP tho, to be fair:

we’re not entirely sure why the firm is being heralded as some kind of supervillain when thus far its rival is the only one to buy up an entire publisher and make its output permanently exclusive. Strange.''

MS haven't pulled off any Zenimax games from PlayStation platforms and they've already said they won't be doing that for quite a few ABK ones as well. Heck, they've even mentioned bringing COD to Switch.

They are extremely tricky and obfuscating WRT future standalone COD games on PlayStation, that much is definitely true, and it's pretty shitty. But factually speaking, they haven't made all of Zenimax's output exclusive yet and I doubt they can, and that's doubly true for ABK.

 

[Dr Bass]

This is exactly the full extent of this whole "drama", and it's more or less a nothingburger. Microsoft knows this as well but for whatever reason, they presented it as argument in the court case knowing other people would take their own interpretations and spread misinformation and narratives around it.

Very disappointing they would do such a thing, although strategically I get it: they need to make Sony look like an unfair player that way it's easier to get the ABK deal approved with as few (if any) strings attached as possible.

Oh and uh...slight correction to the statement in the OP tho, to be fair:



MS haven't pulled off any Zenimax games from PlayStation platforms and they've already said they won't be doing that for quite a few ABK ones as well. Heck, they've even mentioned bringing COD to Switch.

They are extremely tricky and obfuscating WRT future standalone COD games on PlayStation, that much is definitely true, and it's pretty shitty. But factually speaking, they haven't made all of Zenimax's output exclusive yet and I doubt they can, and that's doubly true for ABK.

Starfield is still hitting PS? Bethesda games?

 

[Old Gamer]

Starfield is still hitting PS? Bethesda games?

A PS5 version was in development and got canned asap LOL.
If they don't pull any games from PS, what would have been the point?

 

[Dr Bass]

A PS5 version was in development and got canned asap LOL.
If they don't pull any games from PS, what would have been the point?

Yeah I know, I'm saying I don't see how what @thicc_girls_are_teh_best said is true given all future Bethesda games are gone from the PS platform. They absolutely made things completely exclusive. Because as you said what would be the point?

Just asking him to clarify his point on that one.

 

[peter42O]

This is exactly the full extent of this whole "drama", and it's more or less a nothingburger. Microsoft knows this as well but for whatever reason, they presented it as argument in the court case knowing other people would take their own interpretations and spread misinformation and narratives around it.

Very disappointing they would do such a thing, although strategically I get it: they need to make Sony look like an unfair player that way it's easier to get the ABK deal approved with as few (if any) strings attached as possible.

The RE 8 deal basically proved that there's a clause that prevents the game from going on Game Pass for at least a year from release. Microsoft said it because they know it's true as they can easily get all this information.

In no way, shape or form do I believe that Sony pays to keep games off Game Pass in general. Only if it's for a game in which they're paying for the marketing deal because it would look really bad for them to pay for a marketing deal for a game and that game goes on Game Pass day one. Sony may not even pay extra for this. It may just be a clause in the contract of the marketing deal.

Either way, none of this bothers me. If I was at Sony making these marketing deals, I would implement the exact same clause because it's smart business.

 

[Snake29]

Resident Evil 8 would’ve never been on Gamepass day one if anyone thinks that. So how is Sony blocking that if this game wasn’t suppose to be on any sub service?

It’s funny that people say that Sony is crying, but in fact…it’s MS and their fans who are and the last one are using this fake narrative as some new ammo on their never ending war checklist.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Sony is trying the save the video game industry.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Resident Evil 8 would’ve never been on Gamepass day one if anyone thinks that. So how is Sony blocking that if this game wasn’t suppose to be on any sub service?

Sony paid to block it for up to 18 months from Gamepass. It's not just about day one.

 

[Old Gamer]

Sony paid to block it for up to 18 months from Gamepass. It's not just about day one.

Sony paid for marketing rights, including first refusal in subscription services for up to 18 months.

Do you really think people are naive enough to believe that games with marketing associated to Xbox aren't blocked from PS+ for a period of time as well?