Devolver Debunks Ludicrous Rumour

[Bernd Lauert]

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?

We know for a fact that not all games with Sony marketing get blocked, though. So yeah, Sony went out of their way to pay extra for blocking RE8.

 

[Old Gamer]

Sony is trying the save the video game industry.

They're trying to keep the industry from falling into MS clutches because it's one of their most profitable businesses, not for some righteous desire to "save it".

 

[Old Gamer]

We know for a fact that not all games with Sony marketing get blocked, though. So yeah, Sony went out of their way to pay extra for blocking RE8.

We know for fact marketing deals from BOTH SONY AND MICROSOFT often include clauses regarding subscription services.

Stop trying to push a twisted narrative by abusing the "block" verb.

Edited.

 

[thelastword]

Some people really believe that "Good Guy" Microsoft paid all that money just to continue these games on PS? Whatever they say now, it's only a front. They will say anything for the Activision deal to go through too....

 

[Snake29]

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

Does every game comes to Gamepass? Did Sony also blocked Elden Ring because they had marketing right but it wasn't released on Gamepass or PS+? Are you also going to cry about that and shit on Sony because they've blocked that? People can't play STALKER 2 on PS5 at release because MS purchased exclusive rights and marketing.

Do you see people bitch on Xbox with all their marketing deals? It's time MS gives you guys some food, because you are starving and the xbox fans are starting to talk more and more nonsense and especially become very irritating. The xbox community is showing all over the internet that they are becoming hugely desperate. The longer it takes for games to come out, the more irritating this community begins to become and especially toxic.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Does every game comes to Gamepass? Did Sony also blocked Elden Ring because they had marketing right but it wasn't released on Gamepass or PS+? Are you also going to cry about that and shit on Sony because they've blocked that? People can't play STALKER 2 on PS5 at release because MS purchased exclusive rights and marketing.

Do you see people bitch on Xbox with all their marketing deals? It's time MS gives you guys some food, because you are starving and the xbox fans are starting to talk more and more nonsense and especially become very irritating.

 

[peter42O]

Both Sony and Microsoft do the exact same shit. It simply comes down to if you want to ignore what your favorite is doing or not.

 

[Snake29]

It shows that you are talking nonsense

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

They're trying to keep the industry from falling into MS clutches because it's one of their most profitable businesses, not for some righteous desire to "save it".

Shut up. PlayStation is art.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

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.

Oh, if you mean in terms of future releases, then sure I can see what you're saying from that front. I still think there's a chance something like Starfield and TES VI do get PS ports maybe a few years after they're on Xbox, but it really depends on where the Xbox division is in a few years once these Zenimax and ABK acquisitions have settled in.

If they aren't seeing the returns they should, they'll have PS versions in the end (I do believe there's a PS5 build for Starfield in existence, although it's probably at least 2 years behind at this point, maybe a bit older than that). If they are, though, then yeah there won't be PS versions. I'm actually of the opinion everything MS's doing is more for netting future long-term Azure clients in the game development and publishing space more than anything else. If they get enough big clientele for Azure services in the gaming space (and can integrate tech that belongs to Zenimax and ABK into their own game dev packages and cloud server-side stuff), then they won't care if Starfield or TES VI sales are low, and they won't care to bring those games to PlayStation.

I'm just saying for the immediate time being, virtually all Bethesda and ABK games released up to this point are still available for PlayStation, and will probably remain that way for the short term. PS even has a couple of current-gen exclusives from Bethesda that aren't on Xbox despite MS owning them . But I understand those will likely be the last games from them where this is the case.

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.

Yep, agreed and same. What Sony, MS, & Nintendo do to secure content for their ecosystem and add value for the people in their ecosystem is not much an issue for me. Further industry consolidation might be, but even there at the end of the day, companies are gonna sell and others are gonna buy them. When a deal's been made and it's known, I just generally have to accept it and try seeing how it benefits gamers at the end of the day, tho I can still have my general opinion on how I feel about certain companies making large purchases vs. others.

But yeah WRT to these kind of deals, as you said it's smart business.

 

[Dr Bass]

Oh, if you mean in terms of future releases, then sure I can see what you're saying from that front. I still think there's a chance something like Starfield and TES VI do get PS ports maybe a few years after they're on Xbox, but it really depends on where the Xbox division is in a few years once these Zenimax and ABK acquisitions have settled in.

If they aren't seeing the returns they should, they'll have PS versions in the end (I do believe there's a PS5 build for Starfield in existence, although it's probably at least 2 years behind at this point, maybe a bit older than that). If they are, though, then yeah there won't be PS versions. I'm actually of the opinion everything MS's doing is more for netting future long-term Azure clients in the game development and publishing space more than anything else. If they get enough big clientele for Azure services in the gaming space (and can integrate tech that belongs to Zenimax and ABK into their own game dev packages and cloud server-side stuff), then they won't care if Starfield or TES VI sales are low, and they won't care to bring those games to PlayStation.

I'm just saying for the immediate time being, virtually all Bethesda and ABK games released up to this point are still available for PlayStation, and will probably remain that way for the short term. PS even has a couple of current-gen exclusives from Bethesda that aren't on Xbox despite MS owning them . But I understand those will likely be the last games from them where this is the case.



Yep, agreed and same. What Sony, MS, & Nintendo do to secure content for their ecosystem and add value for the people in their ecosystem is not much an issue for me. Further industry consolidation might be, but even there at the end of the day, companies are gonna sell and others are gonna buy them. When a deal's been made and it's known, I just generally have to accept it and try seeing how it benefits gamers at the end of the day, tho I can still have my general opinion on how I feel about certain companies making large purchases vs. others.

But yeah WRT to these kind of deals, as you said it's smart business.

I agree with what you're saying pretty much 100%.

 

[peter42O]

Yep, agreed and same. What Sony, MS, & Nintendo do to secure content for their ecosystem and add value for the people in their ecosystem is not much an issue for me. Further industry consolidation might be, but even there at the end of the day, companies are gonna sell and others are gonna buy them. When a deal's been made and it's known, I just generally have to accept it and try seeing how it benefits gamers at the end of the day, tho I can still have my general opinion on how I feel about certain companies making large purchases vs. others.

But yeah WRT to these kind of deals, as you said it's smart business.

Agreed. I have learned to just accept whatever happens and just see how it goes and plays out in the years to come. I have also learned that at times, I may have to adapt. For example, just a few years ago, I bought State of Decay 2 Ultimate Edition and Gears 5 instead of playing them via Game Pass because I wasn't into the idea of subscriptions and whatnot but fast forward to now, im all in with them because it's better (and cheaper) for me personally.

And on a related side note - it looks like Ubisoft+ as a separate subscription service is finally coming to Xbox as it was in the Xbox database backend or some shit so this is great for me. I can get all their future releases day one for a cheap $15 monthly rental and they include all of their dlc and expansions day one as well. And of course, this should also be coming to PlayStation as well. Hoping for an official announcement some time this week.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I agree with what you're saying pretty much 100%.

TBF, I prob should've specified between past/current releases and future releases in the original post. Because while there's a slight chance some of those big Bethesda games may come to PlayStation in the future, it's effectively (right now) so close to 0% it might as well be in the margin of error.

Agreed. I have learned to just accept whatever happens and just see how it goes and plays out in the years to come. I have also learned that at times, I may have to adapt. For example, just a few years ago, I bought State of Decay 2 Ultimate Edition and Gears 5 instead of playing them via Game Pass because I wasn't into the idea of subscriptions and whatnot but fast forward to now, im all in with them because it's better (and cheaper) for me personally.

Wish I could say the same xD. As long as there are data caps and game download sizes are still rather hefty (even with improving compression, because games in general are just getting bigger), a pure digital approach or one with subscriptions (which force digital anyway) just isn't in my wheelhouse. If some of these deals for the subscription services extended to physical copies as well, then it'd be a very different tune.

Generally tho feels like a mix is best for my case.

And on a related side note - it looks like Ubisoft+ as a separate subscription service is finally coming to Xbox as it was in the Xbox database backend or some shit so this is great for me. I can get all their future releases day one for a cheap $15 monthly rental and they include all of their dlc and expansions day one as well. And of course, this should also be coming to PlayStation as well. Hoping for an official announcement some time this week.

That's gonna be interesting if it's happening. Guessing Gamescon is where they'll drop the announcement .

 

[peter42O]

Wish I could say the same xD. As long as there are data caps and game download sizes are still rather hefty (even with improving compression, because games in general are just getting bigger), a pure digital approach or one with subscriptions (which force digital anyway) just isn't in my wheelhouse. If some of these deals for the subscription services extended to physical copies as well, then it'd be a very different tune.

Generally tho feels like a mix is best for my case.

I don't have a data cap and download sizes don't bother me but I understand your situation as it's not friendly to digital downloads/subscriptions.

That's gonna be interesting if it's happening. Guessing Gamescon is where they'll drop the announcement .

I hope so. I want Ubisoft+ available already. lol

 

[SLB1904]

I hope so. I want Ubisoft+ available already. lol

Why? They haven't release a game in ages.

 

[peter42O]

Why? They haven't release a game in ages.

For their future games. Why spend $70 when I can spend $15 a monthly rental instead? Plus, it's Ubisoft's own games and IP which means that barring some kind of licensing issue, they would never leave their service and if/when there's DLC/expansions, I can play them for a far cheaper price as well.

I have Avatar, Beyond Good and Evil 2, Prince of Persia Sands of Time Remake, Star Wars game being developed by Massive and Splinter Cell Remake. This doesn't include rumored games like Immortals Fenyx Rising prequel/sequel, 2.5D Prince of Persia game, AC Rift where you'll play as Basim, Far Cry spinoff where you play as Vaas, rumored AC 2007 remake and AC Infinite. I won't speak for anyone else but I have plenty of games coming from Ubisoft.

I can also tryout Skull & Bones as I was never buying it for $70 or even half that and while im not into rogue likes, the Far Cry 6 DLC is basically that and while I wouldn't spend $40 on the season pass, for $15, I would tryout those three DLC's.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I don't have a data cap and download sizes don't bother me but I understand your situation as it's not friendly to digital downloads/subscriptions.

You're either outside of America or have a specialty ISP who actually needs to compete on value and doesn't impose data caps as a result. TBH I always have enough data for a few game downloads, I'm just very strict and slightly paranoid about ever going over the cap.

 

[azertydu91]

You're either outside of America or have a specialty ISP who actually needs to compete on value and doesn't impose data caps as a result. TBH I always have enough data for a few game downloads, I'm just very strict and slightly paranoid about ever going over the cap.

Man data caps seems to be such a hassle.I can't see mysef with a capped internet plan.I think that today alone I might have downloaded more than 150Gb, that's not even including my girlfriend.

 

[laynelane]

Man data caps seems to be such a hassle.I can't see mysef with a capped internet plan.I think that today alone I might have downloaded more than 150Gb, that's not even including my girlfriend.

I remember the dark days when I had one. Watched too much Youtube one month and had to pay extra because of it. I ended up switching providers and although it didn't start that way, my plan evolved into unlimited data. I could never go back.

 

[peter42O]

You're either outside of America or have a specialty ISP who actually needs to compete on value and doesn't impose data caps as a result. TBH I always have enough data for a few game downloads, I'm just very strict and slightly paranoid about ever going over the cap.

I live in the U.S. and have Optimum but Verizon Fios is also available in my area so they have competition. My suggestion would be just to use digital and subscriptions for the games that are digital only or you don't want to buy but are available in a subscription.