Starfield was delayed partly because Xbox has "experienced shipping games too early"

[Darth Vader]

I believe that Sony has paid money for a lot of games to be exclusive (full or timed) in order for them to bring in consumers, gamers and fans into their eco-system. I personally have no issues with what they've done for 27+ years because I know that's how the industry works. Exclusivity brings you in and everything else makes you stay. I just don't cry about what Sony, Microsoft or any company does for that matter because at the end of the day, none of it will affect me in a negative way.

Same as Microsoft and Nintendo. However, paying for timed exclusives (which I disagree with) is not the same as buying whole publishers. I don't know why people insist on this false equivalence.

I don't see them as taking away anything just like I don't see Sony taking away Final Fantasy from Xbox fans. People will say Xbox fans don't buy Final Fantasy or other Square Enix games but why should they? Getting a second rate PSP remaster over FFXVI or FF7R isn't going to get anyone buying your games and if/when they get released years later for $70, nah, vast majority of consumers/gamers will simply say fuck that.

It's literally taking the games away. It's the definition of.

The second reason why I will never see it that way is for the simple fact that they were never Sony's or PlayStation's to begin with. They had/have no ownership of anything Bethesda related or ABK related so you can't take something away when it was never yours to begin with. Microsoft is acquiring studios/publishers because first, they're available for purchase so why wouldn't they and second, because why pay to license content for Game Pass when you can own it instead? Microsoft isn't doing anything that Sony wouldn't do if the roles were reversed.

Sony being able or not being able to buy publishers is an excuse to distract from what Microsoft has already done: Buying publishers and taking games away from other consoles. Again, we're talking established franchises, dozens of them.

The reason why I say Spencer is a visionary is because he's seeing years and decades beyond a box where as Sony for example just doesn't want to change and stay the same as if it was 1995. I also say it because he convinced Nadella and shareholders of his long term vision. If they didn't believe in his vision and more importantly, didn't believe that they could make a shit ton of money in the long term, then they simply would have denied his vision.

Wait, are we now ignoring that the "ideas" Phil Spencer implemented are just advancements previously implemented by Sony and others? Game streaming services existed before XCloud. "Free" games offered as part of a plan existed before Gamepass. He's simply copying what the market already offered and you call him a visionary.

Him being able to con Nadella into setting money on fire does not mean he's a visionary, means he's a good salesman. One that can make people defend a platform that hasn't been able to produce a GOTY in 10 years and that can't even rehash the same old games successfully anymore.

Back to Spencer for a minute, im giving him this entire generation to prove himself just like I gave Sony all of the PlayStation 4 generation to prove themselves to me because outside of old school God of War and Naughty Dog, Sony didn't give me anything great until 2016. For Microsoft, outside of Gears of War, same as Sony. Nothing really for me. Sony proved themselves to me last generation and I gave them the entire generation to win me over which they did game wise. Other aspects leave a lot to be desired but at the same time, they're secondary this generation for me for a reason. Microsoft has the rest of this generation and thus far, they already surpassed last generation for me because while I only gotten Halo Infinite, it was my 2021 game of the year and made me a fan of the series despite never playing a Halo game before Infinite.

Fuckin' hell. Nothing great until 2016

Oh, and on giving Spencer "time" to do things... He was the head of Microsoft Studios starting in 2009 and the Head of Xbox from 2014. It's been over 10 years with shit to show and Phil has done fuck all to actually move gaming forward. Mattrick has his fair share of responsibility, more than Phil even, but he at least did something and Xbox had their best year sales wise in 2011. Of course, in true MS fashion, they copied the EyeToy and sold it as some sort of innovation with the Kinect around the late 00's.

You talk about selling the console at a loss or giving Game Pass for a package of Pringles but I don't see any of this as a negative. Sony has been established for 27 years. Microsoft with Xbox is coming off a horrible generation and decided to reset everything. They couldn't just stay the same of here's a $60 game, buy it and play it and succeed because that time for them was done. That wasn't going to work or do anything in regards to building their brand, platform and eco-system. They needed to change course and pivot which they did with Game Pass and going in a subscription based direction.

Microsoft has had the Xbox for 20+ years, with the first Xbox being released in 2001. They started 7 years after playstation, not 15. They failed because they're inept and their company culture doesn't allow them to actually produce anything that's not buying their way into a market by stiffing competition or copying what's already there and pretending they created it. It happened with windows, it happened with browsers, it happened with plenty of key components of their business.

 

[arvfab]

Looking it up, it seems like Sony had a publishing deal with Universal for Crash. They didn't renew the deal and eventually Universal merged with Vivendi Games who later merged with ABK.

I stand corrected, they only owned Spyro.

 

[peter42O]

Same as Microsoft and Nintendo. However, paying for timed exclusives (which I disagree with) is not the same as buying whole publishers. I don't know why people insist on this false equivalence.

Same end result. Timed or full, the entire point is to prevent the other platform from getting/having the games in order to bring in more consumers to their respective brand, platform and eco-system. It doesn't matter if a game releases a year later on the other platform or never, the end result is still the same, no one cares or buys that game on the other platform a year later especially at full price.

It's literally taking the games away. It's the definition of.

I understand what you're saying but you can't take away something that was never theirs (Sony) to begin with. And consumer wise, well, all I ever read for all of last generation was if you want to play these games, buy the other box. Same situation here. Buy the other box.

Sony being able or not being able to buy publishers is an excuse to distract from what Microsoft has already done: Buying publishers and taking games away from other consoles. Again, we're talking established franchises, dozens of them.

Established franchises some of which were already that without Sony/PlayStation and Microsoft/Xbox. Again, doesn't matter if a franchise is established. Spider Man was established a long ass time ago before gaming and yet, I can't play the current games because Sony leverages the ownership of their movie rights in order to get them as exclusives. But this isn't taking anything away right? Because it's the other side right? Again, you can't take something away that was NEVER Sony's to begin with, period. That's it. Sony owned NOTHING. People acting like Microsoft went into Sony's vault and stole some shit. lol

And if Microsoft didn't buy Bethesda for example and it was Google, would that be better? Or is that automatically better because it's not Microsoft? Because if it wasn't Microsoft, it could have very well been Google so for Starfield and others, not only would none of us get the games on PlayStation OR Xbox, there would be no PC versions AND you have to pay $60 to STREAM the game as there's no disc or digital version of the game. I would like to think that even the most hardcore Sony fan would choose Microsoft and Xbox over Google and Stadia.

Wait, are we now ignoring that the "ideas" Phil Spencer implemented are just advancements previously implemented by Sony and others? Game streaming services existed before XCloud. "Free" games offered as part of a plan existed before Gamepass. He's simply copying what the market already offered and you call him a visionary.

Him being able to con Nadella into setting money on fire does not mean he's a visionary, means he's a good salesman. One that can make people defend a platform that hasn't been able to produce a GOTY in 10 years and that can't even rehash the same old games successfully anymore.

I'm not ignoring game streaming from Sony but their plan for it was never to the level of Spencer's/Microsoft's. Spencer wants streaming on a little box, a TV app, on your PC, on your Series X and even your Xbox One. Sony's plan was here's PS Now because it's the only way we can give you access to PlayStation 3 games. So while Sony had it first with Gaikai and OnLive, let's be honest, they did nothing with either of them and im pretty sure they acquired OnLive just to shut them down. Sony never invested at all into any of it and still haven't invested into any of it. They're barely investing in PC and trying half ass efforts and then cry when no one cares about Miles Morales or Sackboy.

I call Spencer a visionary because he took the idea of streaming and expanded way beyond anything Sony ever even thought of. All Sony did was give you streaming so you can access some PlayStation 3 games. That's all they did with streaming. They didn't invest, they didn't care. They did nothing with the tech that they acquired. I call Spencer a visionary because for many years, he believes that there's much more to gaming than just a plastic box with a ceiling of about 150m users if you're lucky.

How can Microsoft have a GOTY when every media outlet and whatnot are against them? Why wasn't Forza Horizon 5 nominated for GOTY last year at TGA? Oh wait, that's right. It's because it's not the same boring, basic, template, formulaic third person action adventure game. Why wasn't Flight Simulated nominated in 2020? Oh wait, it's just a flight simulator and apparently doesn't count just like Forza Horizon 5 doesn't count because it's a sports/racing game.

And in general, why would anyone even care if Microsoft or any company has a GOTY or not? Ubisoft never wins anything, I don't think their fan base including myself give a shit. Days Gone was my 2019 goty and most hated the game. Why should I care if other people hated the game? Halo Infinite was my 2021 goty but because it wasn't GOTY on TGA, it doesn't count despite the fact that Keighley obviously doesn't know what an actual calendar year is nor is his awards show anything more than a sales and marketing show so while you call Spencer a good salesman, you can add Keighley right beside him.

Fuckin' hell. Nothing great until 2016

Oh, and on giving Spencer "time" to do things... He was the head of Microsoft Studios starting in 2009 and the Head of Xbox from 2014. It's been over 10 years with shit to show and Phil has done fuck all to actually move gaming forward. Mattrick has his fair share of responsibility, more than Phil even, but he at least did something and Xbox had their best year sales wise in 2011. Of course, in true MS fashion, they copied the EyeToy and sold it as some sort of innovation with the Kinect around the late 00's.

I said FOR ME. With PS4, I had Knack, Infamous First Light, The Order 1886 and Until Dawn. A 6.0/10 and three 7.0/10 games respectively. Nothing great. And I don't give two shits about Bloodborne. 2016 gave me Uncharted 4, Ratchet & Clank and Alienation which were all an 8.5/10 for me personally. 2017 gave me HZD which was a 9.5/10 and my goty with Lost Legacy also a 9.5/10 and my favorite Uncharted game. So again, I did say FOR ME.

I know what Spencer's roles were and they mean nothing if the people above you are preventing from doing what you want. Since 2009, basically NOTHING. Late 2017, Myerson is fucking gone and the only people above Phil is Nadella and Amy Hood. 2018, 6 studios acquired and 1 founded. 2019 another studio acquired. 2020 Bethesda. 2022 ABK. So yeah, I don't give a shit what Spencer didn't do all those previous years with people above him handicapping and handcuffing his ass the entire time. But look at that, he actually gets some power and influences and holy shit, massive moves down by Spencer.

Kinect was all Mattrick, fucking sucked and was one of the reasons why Xbox sucked last generation. People blame Spencer yet it was all Mattrick who left four months before he could see his shit show become reality.

Microsoft has had the Xbox for 20+ years, with the first Xbox being released in 2001. They started 7 years after playstation, not 15. They failed because they're inept and their company culture doesn't allow them to actually produce anything that's not buying their way into a market by stiffing competition or copying what's already there and pretending they created it. It happened with windows, it happened with browsers, it happened with plenty of key components of their business.

Where did I say Microsoft started 15 years after PlayStation? I never said that. They produced amazing Halo and Gears of War games back then as well as Fable and others so how have they never done anything? And outside of God of War and Gran Turismo, Sony didn't have shit either until PlayStation 3 and how did they accomplish that? Oh, that's right by acquiring studios but wait, that's perfectly okay because Sony did it but whenever Microsoft acquires anything, it's bad, it's very very bad. But whatever.

 

[Yurinka]

It's also going to put a spotlight on the 2019/2020 1P reveals and more people just asking the obvious question: where are they? What's taking so long?

AAA games take on average 4-6 (sometimes even more) years to be developed. Many games like Fable, Everwild, Elder Scrolls 6, Hellblade 2, Perfect Dark were announced when still weren't in production.

As an example, the Hellblade 2 director said that they planned to enter production after they had a good vertical slice that they had planned to have ready at the end of the last year (which I assume is the short demo they shown). Meaning they completed preproduction and entered production at the end of last year or early this year. This means that unless it's a very short game (they said that this game will be way bigger than the previous one) they'll have several years of production until they release the game, at least 2 or 3. They couldn't start production earlier because it's supposed to be a game that will showcase UE5 and its new toys, meaning that they had to wait to start production until UE5 became available and wasn't available until this year.

Normally the games are announced when they are like around a year and a half/two years from release or even closer, when they are in the middle of production aprox. But in this case MS decided to announce their upcoming 1st party game way earlier than usual because they didn't have enough appealing 1st party exclusives to hype their people, so they instead announced games that they barely started to work in with some logo cg trailers etc.

So if they instead do like you're suggesting and just cut out a huge chunk to help push the game along for a timely 2023 release, it's going to be disadvantageous if that impacts the game's scope and scale significantly, and hurts the presentation. If the visuals, visual fidelity and such aren't good enough to make up for the reduced size and scope, the game's gonna get murdered by gamers and potentially by critics.

Developers typically love to make games and would love to include in games ton of stuff, but have a limited amount of time and resources to release the game. Even if try to carefully plan everything, to make games is something super complex, which means that it has a shit ton of things that can go wrong and can't be predicted, so as a result typically they need more time to release the game than they originally planned. Sometimes they try to hire more people or outsource more stuff, and even delay the game. But even doing that, they run out of time.

So in order to try to be on time, they also drop part of the features and content of the game, particularly some that cause or may cause issues (bugs, performance issues always or when combined with something else, new mechanics that people don't like too much and would need too much time to be tweaked, areas of the game where they are used, content (like amount/variety of NPCs/enemies/customization stuff/stages/props/weapons/vehicles/attacks/etc), game modes that they think are less prioritary, etc.

While developing the games, the features, content or tasks that people do often have a priority lavel: some are mandatory, others are important, others are optional or droppable. Some stuff that can't be done for the milestone it was supposed to be ready sometimes gets delayed to the next one, sometimes the milestone gets delayed if the stuff was very important, but sometimes it gets cut if not ready to be able to complete the milestone and continue.

A ton of these things are often rehased on a DLC or sequel. Sometimes they had that thing implemented (let's say some visual effect at certain level of quality) and looks fine in the earlier stages of development, but causes performance/memory issues or bugs later in the game when combined with something else in another stage, or in certain more limited console. If they don't see a way to fix it on time they reduce that effect or even remove it. This is why the downgrades happen. It isn't something 'done in purpose to lie to the players'. This is another reason of why it's good to wait to show a game until very close to release: in that case the game shown will be very similar to the final game. If the game is shown too early it may include some effects or visual settings or even include features that may not be included in the final game.

Obviously devs would like to have infinite time and resources and shit their games when ready, but for most companies it isn't possible. They have to release them on a reasonable timeframe and reach the forecast that their higher ups, investors, publishers, marketing companies, platform holders, retailers etc. expect to match the roadmaps of everyone involved. Delays typically are a big issue for them, specially in the past where sales were only or mostly physical and where most ads weren't online but in phisical places, or the big publishers had deals with retailers to save them during certain month a certain amount of special space on their shelves and stuff like that. All these roadmaps were planned and coordinated many months in advance and there were very specific slots they had available: if they missed let's say a great slot due to a delay maybe they had to wait like half a year or more than a year to have another one.

Typically it makes devs sad because they'd like to include all their ideas and their work in the game. But prefer to launch the game relatively on time with decent stuff than to have to cancel it or even to go bankrupt (in many cases, funding or deals with publishers require to reach certain milestones with certain quality on specific dates and if not achieved don't get funding for the next one or even the game gets canned and often the studio doesn't have a lot of funding to start from scratch or can't afford multiple games getting canned).

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I believe that Sony has paid money for a lot of games to be exclusive (full or timed) in order for them to bring in consumers, gamers and fans into their eco-system. I personally have no issues with what they've done for 27+ years because I know that's how the industry works. Exclusivity brings you in and everything else makes you stay. I just don't cry about what Sony, Microsoft or any company does for that matter because at the end of the day, none of it will affect me in a negative way.

There're a LOT of caveats here to keep in mind, FWIW. Yes, Sony got a LOT of 3P exclusive support even with the PS1, but they didn't money-hat nearly as much as people think. It's not like Sega and Nintendo made it hard for pissed-off 3P devs and pubs to seek out Sony on their own given the myriad of bad business decisions surrounding Saturn and N64.

Squaresoft for example was one such developer, tired of Nintendo's strict licensing costs and high costs for cartridges. The N64 yet again using carts probably tipped them over the edge. Namco didn't want to be overshadowed by Sega's arcade ports to Saturn, and probably felt that they wouldn't get sufficient dev support from Sega for their ports. Alongside that, they were naturally very impressed with PS1's specs and worked out a deal to license PS1 tech for their System 11 board, that made porting to PS1 ridiculously easy.

Yes Sony did do things like money-hat Tomb Raider 2 exclusivity and RE3 to PS1, but it's partly the fault of Sega and Nintendo for not providing good enough competition with the Saturn & N64 that allowed that situation to develop. If they pulled their part more (especially Sega), they could've at least ensured stuff like Tomb Raider 2 were multiplat, or even gotten them exclusive for their systems instead. Sony just took advantage of an opportunity that was already there; if Sega or Nintendo felt it was worth the money to put up for games like TR2 on their platforms at the time, they could have played ball. They didn't (and I'm saying all this as someone who REALLY likes the Saturn (almost as much as PS1), and likes the N64).

PS2 was a case where, again, in the eyes of devs it seemed like Sony just had the best overall solution. They built off every strength of the PS1, and it was enough to eclipse Sega (who fixed many of Saturn's mistakes, but made new mistakes with Dreamcast i.e launching too early in Japan, leaving an exploit in the BIOS for hackers to crack super easily, pricing too low for Western markets, and losing EA support), Nintendo, and Microsoft. Whatever type of 3P exclusivity money-hats you feel Sony did with PS1 & 2, dropped off significantly with PS3 and that's when MS did that strategy on steroids. Almost all the 3P exclusives Sony got, like Demon's Souls, were co-developed between them and 3P devs like From Software (who already had a deep history with Sony by that point anyway).

I don't see them as taking away anything just like I don't see Sony taking away Final Fantasy from Xbox fans. People will say Xbox fans don't buy Final Fantasy or other Square Enix games but why should they? Getting a second rate PSP remaster over FFXVI or FF7R isn't going to get anyone buying your games and if/when they get released years later for $70, nah, vast majority of consumers/gamers will simply say fuck that.

Xbox fans have had MORE than enough opportunities to show out for JRPGs and have failed to do so. FF XIII, FF XV, PSO 2, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon etc. have all either bombed or underperformed on Xbox over the past 20 years. OTOH, WRPGs tend to do well on the platform, going all the way back to Morrowind, Jade Empire and KOTOR.

It's obvious which way the Xbox audience leans and that shouldn't be surprising considering it was mainly Western devs who flocked to OG Xbox and 360 as the AAA market on PC was dying and those devs needed familiar architectures in the console space to justify continue making stuff like big WRPGs altogether. Xbox was the platform they chose, and most of Xbox's fanbase grew from Western N64 owners and PC gamers shifting to consoles in the 2000s.

The second reason why I will never see it that way is for the simple fact that they were never Sony's or PlayStation's to begin with. They had/have no ownership of anything Bethesda related or ABK related so you can't take something away when it was never yours to begin with. Microsoft is acquiring studios/publishers because first, they're available for purchase so why wouldn't they and second, because why pay to license content for Game Pass when you can own it instead? Microsoft isn't doing anything that Sony wouldn't do if the roles were reversed.

I agree with this in principal, but there are going to be PlayStation gamers who feel otherwise just like how there were Nintendo gamers who felt otherwise when Squaresoft left for Sony with the PS1.

The better question though is why does Microsoft feel they need to acquire ABK in the first place? If the reason is so that they can increase gaming revenue and profit, then it's a tactile admission that revenue and, more importantly, profit from Xbox as it's existed thus far is insufficient. Meaning the performance of 1P software where it matters, revenue and profit, has been substandard for the past several years. That those games have failed to capture the attention of the wider market and even a growing segment of the Xbox customer market.

But that's the part of this some people don't want to talk about, because it means admitting to Microsoft's business mistakes with the brand over at least the past 10 years, and doing so with deep introspection, when certain people want to gloss over them and try bolstering an image of greatness for the brand not reflected by reality (their market performance and cache among the majority of gaming customers).

The reason why I say Spencer is a visionary is because he's seeing years and decades beyond a box where as Sony for example just doesn't want to change and stay the same as if it was 1995. I also say it because he convinced Nadella and shareholders of his long term vision. If they didn't believe in his vision and more importantly, didn't believe that they could make a shit ton of money in the long term, then they simply would have denied his vision.

Fundamentally false. Almost everything Phil Spencer is trying to do with Xbox today, other platform holders have tried in one form or another years if not decades earlier. MS just benefits from recency bias and a tech world that is more interconnected than it's ever been, as well as even lower-end tech now being "good enough" for tasks that would've required high-end performance machines to even attempt only 10 or so years ago.

MS did not start cloud gaming. Onlive and Gaikai did. PS Now was a thing on PCs via cloud access years before GamePass. PS Now as a thing on TVs as an app years before GamePass. Remote Play and Crossbuy were a thing on PlayStation over a decade before Play Anywhere solidified on Xbox. Online gaming was heavily pushed by Sega with the Netlink and SegaNET (which also standardized modem access) way before Xbox Live. Sony was pushing incentives for indie devs with Net Yazore years before Xbox Live Arcade or ID @ Xbox indie initiatives. Consoles like the PC-FX, PS1 (Net Yazore), etc. allowed for devs to use retail systems as dev tools decades before Dev Mode in Xbox Series consoles.

The idea of taking your home console library on the go with native play support was already done with Switch well before MS's endorsement of such for Steam Deck. In fact, Sega was ahead of even that with the Nomad in 1995, which literally played Genesis/MegaDrive games in a portable form factor. Software-based BC was already a thing with PS3 for PS1 & PS2 games (with latter revisions) way before MS did it in 2015. Sony started the model for monthly free game rewards (PS+, starting at least in 2012 on PS3) before MS copied it with Games For Gold. The Kinect was basically MS's version of the EyeToy (Sony) and Wiimote (Nintendo), which had already been available for years prior.

Meanwhile, Microsoft are still not present in consumer-level gaming VR or AR. The truth is, Xbox is around today because Phil Spencer convinced Satya Nadella that it could act as a vector for Azure cloud growth, i.e getting more clients for Azure from the gaming space, and acquiring gaming technologies to integrate into Azure for gaming-orientated backend cloud development platforms & services. Without Azure, Xbox would already be dead, or at least spun off as its own company or subsidiary.

That's the "vision" Phil Spencer has for Xbox long-term and, it's smart in that it meshes with the whole of Microsoft's direction orientated toward services. But let's not pretend like they're the only ones who have been "looking forward" and Sony is some relic stuck in the '90s. If that were the case, they would have pulled out as a platform holder a long, LONG time ago. The fact their business model is more closely related to Nintendo's, and Nintendo has persevered since the '80s, shows that maybe their approaches to the industry are not only not archaic, but reflect a hell of a lot of flexibility on their part where past competitors like Sega, NEC, SNK, 3DO, Atari etc. have failed (although if they had MS levels of cash, at least Sega would still be around and for selfish reasons I'd of loved to have them as a platform holder still).

I know majority here don't like Spencer which is fine but I have no issues or problems with him. Is he perfect? Fuck no but he's doing what no one else including Peter Moore was never ever able to do and that's convince the CEO and the company itself to take Xbox seriously and to go all in. Knowing that Nadella is all in gives me more confidence in Xbox than anything anyone else could ever do because he's putting literally hundreds of billions of dollars into Xbox and as an Xbox gamer and fan, I love seeing it because I know im going to greatly benefit from it all in the end.

Again, I'm just gonna say that the reason Microsoft is "all in" on Xbox is because they are actually "all in" on gaming, and that just happens to also include Xbox. It's NOT because of Xbox in and of itself, but rather what Xbox can do for Azure and what it can (perhaps) enable in growing in gaming via other means.

The one time Xbox WAS able to get full backing (and, yes, Microsoft did heavily back Xbox prior to 2017, let's not pretend they didn't) of Microsoft was with the Xbox 360. You don't decide to double a console's RAM because of a specific developer's complaints, cover the cost of RROD, lock in HUGE NUMBERS of 3P exclusives, timed exclusives and exclusive DLC, pump money into aggressive marketing, attempt to compete in the (then-relevant) format wars through your console, and spend hundreds of millions on a Kinect device that catapulted your console sales, if you weren't going "all in".

Back to Spencer for a minute, im giving him this entire generation to prove himself just like I gave Sony all of the PlayStation 4 generation to prove themselves to me because outside of old school God of War and Naughty Dog, Sony didn't give me anything great until 2016. For Microsoft, outside of Gears of War, same as Sony. Nothing really for me. Sony proved themselves to me last generation and I gave them the entire generation to win me over which they did game wise. Other aspects leave a lot to be desired but at the same time, they're secondary this generation for me for a reason. Microsoft has the rest of this generation and thus far, they already surpassed last generation for me because while I only gotten Halo Infinite, it was my 2021 game of the year and made me a fan of the series despite never playing a Halo game before Infinite.

The problem is you're being very anecdotal here, when we're really talking about the larger market at a macro scale. It's obvious for the majority that Sony was doing the right things with PS4 WELL before 2016. In fact, IMO they began their comeback in 2009, during the last years of PS3. Demon's Souls, the better version of GTA5 (up to that point), GT6, Uncharted 3, TLOU, and smaller games like Tearaway, Echochrome, Puppeteer, etc. at a time Microsoft more or less abandoned the core gamer outside of yet another Halo or Forza.

That was goodwill Sony used towards launching the PS4 and, yeah, I'd say the XBO had a stronger initial lineup of exclusives in the first year, but Sony's goodwill from turning the PS3 around combined with having the evidently better platform for multiplats and strong quality in software regardless (plus a better price), helped continue their momentum. MS screwing up royally also helped.

You talk about selling the console at a loss or giving Game Pass for a package of Pringles but I don't see any of this as a negative. Sony has been established for 27 years. Microsoft with Xbox is coming off a horrible generation and decided to reset everything. They couldn't just stay the same of here's a $60 game, buy it and play it and succeed because that time for them was done. That wasn't going to work or do anything in regards to building their brand, platform and eco-system. They needed to change course and pivot which they did with Game Pass and going in a subscription based direction.

Sony actually was NOT established for the early years of PS1. In Japan, from 1994 to up before FF VII, they were 2nd to Sega and the Saturn, although that gap shrunk with each month. Before PS1, Sony were known for shitty FMV and Sony ImageSoft games, they weren't at all really "established" as a trusted brand in gaming at that point. They had to earn that cache, and that meant doing more than just buying a publisher or locking in certain 3P exclusive deals.

Like, they could have locked in 3P exclusivity for games like Daikatana, Congo etc. instead and died off anyway because those games being exclusive wouldn't have changed the fact they were shit games. So they had to earn a good eye for content worth locking down deals with, co-funding/co-developing etc. and yes some of that involved getting talent from other companies like Sega and Nintendo but those companies were making it easy for talent to leave anyway.

Also I wouldn't say MS reset "everything" this gen. If they did, the branding for Xbox would have been completely removed from the One X and One S, but it isn't. Hell, the Series S looks A LOT like the One S!! They pushed the Series early on for being BC with XBO games and boosting their performance, so how is that a full-on reset? Looking to GamePass as the solution isn't the long-term thing you seem to think it is; if it were, why have MS come out lately and state they don't see it constituting any more than 10 - 15% of their total gaming revenue?

If GamePass was the thing to base the future of the brand upon, I would think they'd imagine it making up a hell of a lot more of total gaming revenue than 15%.

Looking it up, it seems like Sony had a publishing deal with Universal for Crash. They didn't renew the deal and eventually Universal merged with Vivendi Games who later merged with ABK.

Yep, that's the story behind Sony's history with Crash Bandicoot. Considering the drop in Crash's sales and quality with the PS2/GC/Xbox generation, and Sony finding other successful anthropomorphic brands in Rachet & Clank and Jak & Daxter, Crash seemingly needed Sony more than Sony needed Crash. I'll even be bold enough and say that's the case to this day; look at how well the remake trilogy did as a timed PS4 exclusive (likely bolstered at least by the Crash Easter egg in UC4) compared to Crash 4.

Maybe Crash 4 was an issue of timing, but it's also possible maybe it not being as strongly tied to the PlayStation brand resulted in a massive drop of interest as well. That's something Microsoft and ABK will have to test out if/when they do another Crash game in the future, though.

 

[peter42O]

There're a LOT of caveats here to keep in mind, FWIW. Yes, Sony got a LOT of 3P exclusive support even with the PS1, but they didn't money-hat nearly as much as people think. It's not like Sega and Nintendo made it hard for pissed-off 3P devs and pubs to seek out Sony on their own given the myriad of bad business decisions surrounding Saturn and N64.

Squaresoft for example was one such developer, tired of Nintendo's strict licensing costs and high costs for cartridges. The N64 yet again using carts probably tipped them over the edge. Namco didn't want to be overshadowed by Sega's arcade ports to Saturn, and probably felt that they wouldn't get sufficient dev support from Sega for their ports. Alongside that, they were naturally very impressed with PS1's specs and worked out a deal to license PS1 tech for their System 11 board, that made porting to PS1 ridiculously easy.

Yes Sony did do things like money-hat Tomb Raider 2 exclusivity and RE3 to PS1, but it's partly the fault of Sega and Nintendo for not providing good enough competition with the Saturn & N64 that allowed that situation to develop. If they pulled their part more (especially Sega), they could've at least ensured stuff like Tomb Raider 2 were multiplat, or even gotten them exclusive for their systems instead. Sony just took advantage of an opportunity that was already there; if Sega or Nintendo felt it was worth the money to put up for games like TR2 on their platforms at the time, they could have played ball. They didn't (and I'm saying all this as someone who REALLY likes the Saturn (almost as much as PS1), and likes the N64).

PS2 was a case where, again, in the eyes of devs it seemed like Sony just had the best overall solution. They built off every strength of the PS1, and it was enough to eclipse Sega (who fixed many of Saturn's mistakes, but made new mistakes with Dreamcast i.e launching too early in Japan, leaving an exploit in the BIOS for hackers to crack super easily, pricing too low for Western markets, and losing EA support), Nintendo, and Microsoft. Whatever type of 3P exclusivity money-hats you feel Sony did with PS1 & 2, dropped off significantly with PS3 and that's when MS did that strategy on steroids. Almost all the 3P exclusives Sony got, like Demon's Souls, were co-developed between them and 3P devs like From Software (who already had a deep history with Sony by that point anyway).

While I agree with you, Sony still paid for a good amount of games just for the sake of keeping them off Sega's and/or Nintendo's platforms. If anything, I see this as worse than Microsoft acquiring a publisher because Sony doesn't even own these IP's that they're paying for and are strictly doing it with the intent and purpose of killing off their competition. Microsoft acquiring Bethesda outside of The Elder Scrolls and Fallout to a lesser extent means nothing to PlayStation because even with PS4, no one bought Bethesda's other games so what exactly are they losing? Nothing.

The timed exclusive games fell off with PS3 because Sony screwed up by releasing a year later at $600 and using the shitty still causing them issues 15+ years later Cell processor. Plus, Microsoft simply nailed nearly every aspect of Xbox 360. But look at how Sony got to that egotistical state which was by dominating with PS and PS2 which was helped by all of the timed/full exclusive games that they paid for.

My entire issue is that what Sony did was no better than what people complain now with Microsoft and in my eyes, worse because how can anyone tell a company that buys something what to do with it as if they have that right when they don't have a right to anything whatsoever? Plus, the end result is the same. Have exclusive games and content by any means necessary in order to grow your platform.

Look at COD MW 2 now on PS4/PS5. It's literally a pay to win game because of all the exclusive perks and content that you get if you're pre-ordered or did this or that. Plus, an operator exclusive for a year to the platform reminds me of the Destiny stuff they paid for back in 2014. People can talk about how Sony build up their brand so companies want to work with them and whatever but then complain because no one wants to work with Microsoft so they just say fuck it and start acquiring companies and even with the ABK deal, there's literally nothing illegal about it and at worse, it's all based on what if's twenty years from now which while could be a success for Microsoft could just as easily be a failure which so many people here mention all the time so why is anyone worried? If anything, people should be happy because they can see Microsoft have Xbox implode from within and there you go, problem solved.

Xbox fans have had MORE than enough opportunities to show out for JRPGs and have failed to do so. FF XIII, FF XV, PSO 2, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon etc. have all either bombed or underperformed on Xbox over the past 20 years. OTOH, WRPGs tend to do well on the platform, going all the way back to Morrowind, Jade Empire and KOTOR.

It's obvious which way the Xbox audience leans and that shouldn't be surprising considering it was mainly Western devs who flocked to OG Xbox and 360 as the AAA market on PC was dying and those devs needed familiar architectures in the console space to justify continue making stuff like big WRPGs altogether. Xbox was the platform they chose, and most of Xbox's fanbase grew from Western N64 owners and PC gamers shifting to consoles in the 2000s.

I agree with this and no, it's not surprising but yet, despite JRPG's having almost no presence on Xbox, Sony still found the need to moneyhat games. Like, why? If they don't sell/gain a following on Xbox, what are they worried about? To me, Sony simply wants to see Microsoft hang around but never ever be an actual threat to their market dominance.

I agree with this in principal, but there are going to be PlayStation gamers who feel otherwise just like how there were Nintendo gamers who felt otherwise when Squaresoft left for Sony with the PS1.

The better question though is why does Microsoft feel they need to acquire ABK in the first place? If the reason is so that they can increase gaming revenue and profit, then it's a tactile admission that revenue and, more importantly, profit from Xbox as it's existed thus far is insufficient. Meaning the performance of 1P software where it matters, revenue and profit, has been substandard for the past several years. That those games have failed to capture the attention of the wider market and even a growing segment of the Xbox customer market.

But that's the part of this some people don't want to talk about, because it means admitting to Microsoft's business mistakes with the brand over at least the past 10 years, and doing so with deep introspection, when certain people want to gloss over them and try bolstering an image of greatness for the brand not reflected by reality (their market performance and cache among the majority of gaming customers).

Microsoft didn't need to acquire ABK. They basically fell into their lap and if you're Microsoft, you can't pass them up and if you did, you should probably be fired because you didn't do what you should have in order to make the company more competitive in certain aspects and markets like mobile and of course, the amount of money that Microsoft will gain.

Every company wants to make more money including Sony. Sony doesn't want to lose COD or anything because they would lose a shit ton of revenue and if they lose consumers who jump ship, that's even more revenue they would lose. Also, Microsoft has already been very profitable with Xbox as they've already shown the numbers. I don't know why people keep saying this or that and even if they weren't, it doesn't matter because in order to grow Game Pass, with every subscription based service, you have to take losses before you can make profits. It took Netflix 20+ years to make money. Game Pass has already make profits which I have said since 2020 regardless of how anyone wants to spin it. Even it's literally a cent/penny, it's still a profit.

Acquiring ABK is first and foremost about King. PlayStation gamers think it's about COD when in reality, that's just a bonus. King will make Microsoft far more money than COD on PlayStation will once they own them. And then you add in Diablo Immortal (which is STILL available in China by the way) and whatever other mobile games they may have and this is why they acquired ABK. Microsoft wants to be available to literally billions of consumers. That's NEVER EVER going to happen with a console, period. How do you reach those people who don't give two shits about console gaming whatsoever? By getting them through their mobile devices. Here's Candy Crush on your mobile device as an app. And wait, what's this? A Game Pass app where you can stream games on your phone? Well, there will be those who check this app out and see what it is. This is why Microsoft decided to acquire ABK and also, let's be honest, the only reason they were even available for purchase was because of all the fucked up shit that happened the previous 18 months.

I admit Microsoft's mistakes with Xbox the last decade or so. How many times have I said that Xbox One sucked and was their worst generation? I have this numerous times. But here's something some people don't want to talk about - the present and future because it's far more positive and exciting than the past which is what a lot of people focus on simply because it's to talk about Microsoft and Xbox in a negative light and it's like, why?

I don't care that Xbox One fucking sucked. That shit is long gone, dead and buried. As an Xbox Series X owner, why would I care about what they didn't do 5 or 10 years ago? What does any of that have to do with NOW? Can I go back in time and change shit? No, of course not so why do so many people keep reflecting on the past unless of course, it's because those people just don't ever want to see Microsoft or Xbox in a positive light and just prefer to shit on them over and over despite the fact that they don't own an Xbox Series console nor care to do so which would be the same as me bashing Nintendo. Like, why? What's the freaking point?

I do think Microsoft is doing great NOW and will only be even better as the years progress. I truly don't understand why anyone would give two shits about the past. I have had a great two year run on my PlayStation 5 so why would I care that the first two years of PlayStation 4 sucked for me? Like, why would I or anyone for that matter care about all this other shit?

Fundamentally false. Almost everything Phil Spencer is trying to do with Xbox today, other platform holders have tried in one form or another years if not decades earlier. MS just benefits from recency bias and a tech world that is more interconnected than it's ever been, as well as even lower-end tech now being "good enough" for tasks that would've required high-end performance machines to even attempt only 10 or so years ago.

MS did not start cloud gaming. Onlive and Gaikai did. PS Now was a thing on PCs via cloud access years before GamePass. PS Now as a thing on TVs as an app years before GamePass. Remote Play and Crossbuy were a thing on PlayStation over a decade before Play Anywhere solidified on Xbox. Online gaming was heavily pushed by Sega with the Netlink and SegaNET (which also standardized modem access) way before Xbox Live. Sony was pushing incentives for indie devs with Net Yazore years before Xbox Live Arcade or ID @ Xbox indie initiatives. Consoles like the PC-FX, PS1 (Net Yazore), etc. allowed for devs to use retail systems as dev tools decades before Dev Mode in Xbox Series consoles.

The idea of taking your home console library on the go with native play support was already done with Switch well before MS's endorsement of such for Steam Deck. In fact, Sega was ahead of even that with the Nomad in 1995, which literally played Genesis/MegaDrive games in a portable form factor. Software-based BC was already a thing with PS3 for PS1 & PS2 games (with latter revisions) way before MS did it in 2015. Sony started the model for monthly free game rewards (PS+, starting at least in 2012 on PS3) before MS copied it with Games For Gold. The Kinect was basically MS's version of the EyeToy (Sony) and Wiimote (Nintendo), which had already been available for years prior.

I agree and said Sony did their game streaming first and yes, I know Sega did online gaming before Microsoft. I do know all that but it doesn't matter who did it first, what matters is who did it best and in both of these regards, like it or not, it's Microsoft.

Meanwhile, Microsoft are still not present in consumer-level gaming VR or AR. The truth is, Xbox is around today because Phil Spencer convinced Satya Nadella that it could act as a vector for Azure cloud growth, i.e getting more clients for Azure from the gaming space, and acquiring gaming technologies to integrate into Azure for gaming-orientated backend cloud development platforms & services. Without Azure, Xbox would already be dead, or at least spun off as its own company or subsidiary.

That's the "vision" Phil Spencer has for Xbox long-term and, it's smart in that it meshes with the whole of Microsoft's direction orientated toward services. But let's not pretend like they're the only ones who have been "looking forward" and Sony is some relic stuck in the '90s. If that were the case, they would have pulled out as a platform holder a long, LONG time ago. The fact their business model is more closely related to Nintendo's, and Nintendo has persevered since the '80s, shows that maybe their approaches to the industry are not only not archaic, but reflect a hell of a lot of flexibility on their part where past competitors like Sega, NEC, SNK, 3DO, Atari etc. have failed (although if they had MS levels of cash, at least Sega would still be around and for selfish reasons I'd of loved to have them as a platform holder still).

As someone who doesn't give two shits about VR or AR, im very happy that Microsoft has stayed away from both as they're niche, gimmicky and are better suited for sports, entertainment, etc. as opposed to gaming.

I agree. Phil is brilliant with his vision because of course, it has to fit in with Microsoft's direction as a company which is why it's brilliant. Imagine trying to do the opposite for no apparent reason knowing that it's not going to fly with Nadella. Sony is looking forward but let's be honest, they're like a generation behind in a lot of aspects. PC, streaming, mobile, etc. and the reason for that sadly is their fan base who wants them to stay as is despite the fact that they need to grow in these areas or quite simply, they're going to be left behind. That's why I will never understand those who are against Sony putting their games on PC day one. It's like, don't you want them to grow and get bigger? And build a fan base on PC in the process? I don't get it. People acting like their games are going on Xbox or Nintendo. lol

 

[peter42O]

Again, I'm just gonna say that the reason Microsoft is "all in" on Xbox is because they are actually "all in" on gaming, and that just happens to also include Xbox. It's NOT because of Xbox in and of itself, but rather what Xbox can do for Azure and what it can (perhaps) enable in growing in gaming via other means.

The one time Xbox WAS able to get full backing (and, yes, Microsoft did heavily back Xbox prior to 2017, let's not pretend they didn't) of Microsoft was with the Xbox 360. You don't decide to double a console's RAM because of a specific developer's complaints, cover the cost of RROD, lock in HUGE NUMBERS of 3P exclusives, timed exclusives and exclusive DLC, pump money into aggressive marketing, attempt to compete in the (then-relevant) format wars through your console, and spend hundreds of millions on a Kinect device that catapulted your console sales, if you weren't going "all in".

Xbox is the driving force behind their push to being all in with gaming. It starts with Xbox. If Xbox was shut down in 2017 which was very possible, they wouldn't be doing anything in regards to mobile gaming or cloud streaming games because the main component wouldn't exist. They're not going to be able to build these other aspects without building and growing Xbox first and in turn, Game Pass which in the long term is the real driving force behind everything that they're doing.

I agree with you in regards to back then with Xbox 360 but let's be honest, in the last 4+ years, that looks like nothing in comparison. So yeah, Microsoft invested back then but compared to now, it's not even close or even a debate.

The problem is you're being very anecdotal here, when we're really talking about the larger market at a macro scale. It's obvious for the majority that Sony was doing the right things with PS4 WELL before 2016. In fact, IMO they began their comeback in 2009, during the last years of PS3. Demon's Souls, the better version of GTA5 (up to that point), GT6, Uncharted 3, TLOU, and smaller games like Tearaway, Echochrome, Puppeteer, etc. at a time Microsoft more or less abandoned the core gamer outside of yet another Halo or Forza.

That was goodwill Sony used towards launching the PS4 and, yeah, I'd say the XBO had a stronger initial lineup of exclusives in the first year, but Sony's goodwill from turning the PS3 around combined with having the evidently better platform for multiplats and strong quality in software regardless (plus a better price), helped continue their momentum. MS screwing up royally also helped.

Like I mentioned to Dodrake, I said FOR ME. Not in general. And this was just for the first two years of PS4. This is why im very relaxed with Xbox because I said 2016 which is basically the equivalent of next year (2023). I gave Sony and PS4 all of last generation to give me more than just Naughty Dog games from PS3 and starting in their third full year, they did. I'm simply doing the exact same thing with Microsoft and Xbox Series X. There's literally no difference in this regard of how im treating Xbox this generation compared to PlayStation last generation.

I would say that they started a slight comeback in 2009 with the PS3 Slim and Uncharted 2 but it was more 2013 with a massive marketing deal for GTA 5 and the release of The Last of Us. Microsoft didn't have much after Gears of War 3 in 2011 and had a horrible Xbox One introduction, horrible decision to force Kinect and the $500 price tag was a horrible decision. Funny thing is that when you look at the first two years of last generation including E3 2013 and E3 2014, Microsoft had the far better games lineup than Sony did but it didn't matter because the damage was already done.

One thing that few if any ever mention is that when you look at Sony's dominance with PS, PS2 and PS4, they got extremely lucky. Think about it. With PS, Nintendo stayed with cartridges which led to a lot of publishers and studios to go with Sony and Sega didn't know what they were doing. Then with PS2, Microsoft was the new kid on the block, Sega basically died and Nintendo went with Gamecube which did worse than Nintendo 64. Sony also make a brilliant decision - to have their console use DVD's as the format so a lot of their sales were because people wanted a DVD player and at $300, PS2 was the cheapest. With PS4, Nintendo fucked up with Wii U a year earlier and Microsoft made horrible decisions.

Now look at the two generations where the competition didn't screw up. Nintendo dominated with Wii and Microsoft was awesome with Xbox 360. Sure, Sony fought back but they lost half their user install base and even with PS4, they didn't get everyone back. This generation, Nintendo is on fire with Switch and Microsoft has done way better than last generation up to this point and when you think about it, the only real negative for Xbox is their first party exclusives which have been great thus far, just not as many as expected and obviously, delays to Redfall and Starfield hurt them this year but if they can have an amazing 2023 which on paper they should, they could easily be on a run where they don't have a gap at all for the rest of the generation.

Either way, it's all very exciting. At least for me anyway.

Sony actually was NOT established for the early years of PS1. In Japan, from 1994 to up before FF VII, they were 2nd to Sega and the Saturn, although that gap shrunk with each month. Before PS1, Sony were known for shitty FMV and Sony ImageSoft games, they weren't at all really "established" as a trusted brand in gaming at that point. They had to earn that cache, and that meant doing more than just buying a publisher or locking in certain 3P exclusive deals.

Like, they could have locked in 3P exclusivity for games like Daikatana, Congo etc. instead and died off anyway because those games being exclusive wouldn't have changed the fact they were shit games. So they had to earn a good eye for content worth locking down deals with, co-funding/co-developing etc. and yes some of that involved getting talent from other companies like Sega and Nintendo but those companies were making it easy for talent to leave anyway.

Also I wouldn't say MS reset "everything" this gen. If they did, the branding for Xbox would have been completely removed from the One X and One S, but it isn't. Hell, the Series S looks A LOT like the One S!! They pushed the Series early on for being BC with XBO games and boosting their performance, so how is that a full-on reset? Looking to GamePass as the solution isn't the long-term thing you seem to think it is; if it were, why have MS come out lately and state they don't see it constituting any more than 10 - 15% of their total gaming revenue?

If GamePass was the thing to base the future of the brand upon, I would think they'd imagine it making up a hell of a lot more of total gaming revenue than 15%.

Let me rephrase the first part. Sony wasn't established but PlayStation clearly was. By 1996 with Resident Evil, they were already becoming the brand and console to own. It didn't take them long and while they had a lot of help from Sega and Nintendo screwing up, they were by far, better than the other two.

Sony Imagesoft didn't matter. When I first got PlayStation in late 1995, I didn't know any of their previous shit. All I knew was that I have RE coming up and here's Twisted Metal, Destruction Derby and a bunch of other great games I can play for $300 where as on the other side with Sega, they rushed everything, overcharged and had a console which was more 2D than 3D based which was a mistake.

When I say reset, you know what I mean. They reset by having a more consumer friendly approach, the more powerful console, no add-ons or gimmicks attached to it for the hardcore fans like myself and a more affordable cheaper console for families and casuals. They had announced the acquisition of Bethesda two months prior and had already acquired 7 studios and founded 1 in the previous 2+ years.

I look at 2018 where they "reset" their pricing model and direction. You can still buy their games but subscribe to Game Pass and you get all their first party games day one.

Game Pass IS what will make or break Xbox this generation which in turn will be based on their first party output. Even I will admit that Phil is full of shit when saying 10-15% because that's just because Sony and regulators are being a loyal pain in the ass. He doesn't believe that and neither do I but in 2022 with the ABK deal pending and having almost no first party releases, what else would he really say? What would you say? I would say the same as Phil.

Phil lies. Jimbo lies. They all lie. The only difference is that I just don't go nuts or complain because in all honesty, I don't care. All I care about is the games. Thus far, Sony has been excellent. No issues. Microsoft has had some great games but they're not for me and the one game that was in Halo Infinite was my 2021 goty so while that's all they gave me thus far, they've already given me a goty where as the last one was 2008 with Gears of War 2. So I can't really complain especially when 2023 and beyond looks amazing on paper. Whether or not what's on paper becomes a reality remains to be seen but either way, im ready!!!

 

[Kokoloko]

True but the argument hasn't been about if they're bigger on PlayStation, it was always about being multi-platform and where they were first. So for example, while Sony hasn't owned the Crash or Spyro IP's, they were still associated with PlayStation similar to Resident Evil and Tomb Raider because they were there first. This applies to The Elder Scrolls which was on Xbox first so console wise, it will forever be seen as an Xbox game like those others are seen as PlayStation games.

I dunno, having 1 PC port doesnt make it associated with Xbox. Barely anyone bought the OG Xbox.
Anyway it doesnt matter, PS doesnt own RE or MGS, Crash. And MS didn’t own Bethesda. They do now, so doesn‘t matter what I think. They own them now and its there IP.
But its still a bitch, richboy move. They failed at making there own games popular or important enough, so they had to go and buy elsewhere. Something Nintendo and PS dont need to do. Its a smart move for them because they would of been irrelevant this gen without Bethesda purchase.
Apple can come in and do the same thing, doesnt mean its a good thing

 

[peter42O]

I dunno, having 1 PC port doesnt make it associated with Xbox. Barely anyone bought the OG Xbox.
Anyway it doesnt matter, PS doesnt own RE or MGS, Crash. And MS didn’t own Bethesda. They do now, so doesn‘t matter what I think. They own them now and its there IP.
But its still a bitch, richboy move. They failed at making there own games popular or important enough, so they had to go and buy elsewhere. Something Nintendo and PS dont need to do. Its a smart move for them because they would of been irrelevant this gen without Bethesda purchase.
Apple can come in and do the same thing, doesnt mean its a good thing

I agree with you for the most part but if Microsoft didn't spend their money, how else would they have been able to improve and become better? They had 5 studios going into 2018 - 343 Industries which is by far their most troubled studio despite having Halo but they're not Bungie and most people there aren't from Bungie and they're literally nothing more than a Halo factory. Mojang is literally nothing more than Minecraft and related games like Dungeons and Legends. Rare is not what they once were and while I believe they should have renamed them when they revealed Sea of Thieves, the fact of the matter is that Sea of Thieves is by far their most successful played game in their history. It's not for me but I can't argue it's success. Everwild seems to be in a creative funk because there's people who wanted the game one way while others wanted a different way. Personally, I don't care about Rare so whatever they do, they do. The Coalition is literally Gears of War even though they do have a new IP that based on art concepts I hope is real and true because it looks freaking great based on what it could end up being. And then there's Turn 10 which is Forza Motorsport and tech.

So realistically, what did you and others here expect Microsoft to do? Not spend their money? It was just a matter of time until they went nuclear. And to be honest, outside of Santa Monica and Polphony Digital, Sony's best studios were literally acquired. If you want to discount Microsoft's studios that they acquired then you have to do the same for Sony. And it doesn't matter if Sony/Microsoft worked with them prior to being acquired because that means nothing at all. People only use the "organic" argument which is bullshit in of itself to justify why one company's acquisitions is good but other's is bad when in reality, none of this shit is reality. None of this shit is even a thing. It's just what people make up to justify their perspective and their favoritism. That's literally what it is. There's no rules or this or that when it comes to acquisitions, exclusive games and exclusive content. It's a free for all. It's a free market. It's capitalism. It's simply how the world works like it or not, agree or disagree. It's simply what it is.

My belief and feelings is simple. I want to play the fucking games. I don't give two shits if it's on my Xbox or PlayStation. For this generation, yes, I prefer playing games on my Xbox Series X but when there's a game like Final Fantasy XVI or Final Fantasy VII Rebirth or others that are NOT available to play on my Xbox Series X, I turn it off and I go turn on my PlayStation 5 so I can play the games that I want to play.

Too many people regardless of which side they're on cry about either side taking this or that away when in reality, neither of them are truly taking away anything because if that was the case, those games wouldn't exist at all. The option to play these games is still available to everyone. Is it available on your favorite preferred platform? Perhaps not but if it's the exclusive games and content themselves that truly matter which is something PlayStation fans bash Xbox repeatedly for not having, then wouldn't these people do what is necessary in order to play these games that they want to play?

That's how I look at it all. The ONLY person who can restrict me is MYSELF. That's literally it. Sony and Microsoft can't restrict me ever. That's not happening. LMAO. I bought a Sega CDX for $400 back in the day so I could buy and play Snatcher and Final Fight CD. Literally, two games. Easily 100% worth the cost. If people really want to play a game that's not on their preferred platform, they have the option to gain access to those games if they so choose but if they choose not to, that's 100% entirely on them. No one else.

 

[Old Gamer]

Same end result.

Far from it. In the case of a timed exclusive, people on the affected system will still get to play the same game there later on. When a publisher is bought out, future entries of all franchises owned by said publisher are prevented from ever being ported and released in the affected system.

The end result for consumers IS the difference.

Stop with the dishonesty.

 

[Gediminas]

Far from it. In the case of a timed exclusive, people on the affected system will still get to play the same game there later on. When a publisher is bought out, future entries of all franchises owned by said publisher are prevented from ever being ported and released in the affected system.

The end result for consumers IS the difference.

Stop with the dishonesty.

Xbot making dishonest comments . Nothing new at the office.

 

[peter42O]

Far from it. In the case of a timed exclusive, people on the affected system will still get to play the same game there later on. When a publisher is bought out, future entries of all franchises owned by said publisher are prevented from ever being ported and released in the affected system.

The end result for consumers IS the difference.

Stop with the dishonesty.

Nope. There is no difference because vast majority of gamers don't care about a year old game at full price. The time for that game is basically done and gone. Timed exclusivity is WORSE because the company paying for this doesn't even own it yet they act is if they do.

Timed exclusivity is to hurt the other platform which is no different than acquiring a studio or a publisher. The simple fact is that if Sony does whatever, it's completely fine. No issues. But whenever Microsoft does anything even timed exclusivity like with ROTTR, the who gaming world bitches.

EDIT: I realize that vast majority here just want Microsoft and Xbox to stay shitty and never get better or do anything. Just sit there and suck. That's literally it. Then people will say, do it right way as if there is a right way when there isn't. Sony's 4 out of 5 top studios were acquired. But that's fine of course because it's Sony doing it but Microsoft acquires a few studios, they can't be allowed. They acquire a publisher and OMG, that must be blocked. But whatever.

 

[Hezekiah]

Nope. There is no difference because vast majority of gamers don't care about a year old game at full price. The time for that game is basically done and gone. Timed exclusivity is WORSE because the company paying for this doesn't even own it yet they act is if they do.

Timed exclusivity is to hurt the other platform which is no different than acquiring a studio or a publisher. The simple fact is that if Sony does whatever, it's completely fine. No issues. But whenever Microsoft does anything even timed exclusivity like with ROTTR, the who gaming world bitches.

EDIT: I realize that vast majority here just want Microsoft and Xbox to stay shitty and never get better or do anything. Just sit there and suck. That's literally it. Then people will say, do it right way as if there is a right way when there isn't. Sony's 4 out of 5 top studios were acquired. But that's fine of course because it's Sony doing it but Microsoft acquires a few studios, they can't be allowed. They acquire a publisher and OMG, that must be blocked. But whatever.

According to whom?

This kind of nonsensical statement seemed designed by Xbots so that they can claim timed exclusivity is as bad (or in this worse) than a company buying up huge publishers because it can't create and develop its own games.

 

[Gediminas]

Nope. There is no difference because vast majority of gamers don't care about a year old game at full price. The time for that game is basically done and gone. Timed exclusivity is WORSE because the company paying for this doesn't even own it yet they act is if they do.

Timed exclusivity is to hurt the other platform which is no different than acquiring a studio or a publisher. The simple fact is that if Sony does whatever, it's completely fine. No issues. But whenever Microsoft does anything even timed exclusivity like with ROTTR, the who gaming world bitches.

EDIT: I realize that vast majority here just want Microsoft and Xbox to stay shitty and never get better or do anything. Just sit there and suck. That's literally it. Then people will say, do it right way as if there is a right way when there isn't. Sony's 4 out of 5 top studios were acquired. But that's fine of course because it's Sony doing it but Microsoft acquires a few studios, they can't be allowed. They acquire a publisher and OMG, that must be blocked. But whatever.

 

[PlacidusaX]

I think the 15 fps performance is the real reason for the delay.

 

[Old Gamer]

I think the 15 fps performance is the real reason for the delay.

Mods will fix that, it's not a problem.

 

[PlacidusaX]

Mods will fix that, it's not a problem.

Well I read a rumor somewhere that it was going to be 30fps...

 

[peter42O]

According to whom?

This kind of nonsensical statement seemed designed by Xbots so that they can claim timed exclusivity is as bad (or in this worse) than a company buying up huge publishers because it can't create and develop its own games.

In all honesty, it's all bad. But unless both companies were to agree not to do any of this at all, it's not going to change.

 

[Hezekiah]

In all honesty, it's all bad. But unless both companies were to agree not to do any of this at all, it's not going to change.

Blowing $77bn on two massive publishers, and publicly admitting you will be in the market for more is much worse. Even you have to admit that.

Elder Scrolls, Doom, Wolfenstein and yes Starfield will all be gatekept by MS going forward, Overwatch, Diablo and others will follow.

And I don't want to hear about x-Cloud, cloud gaming is shit and further expense if you're talking about £11 a month. And while I'm fortunate to have a gaming PC, plenty of Playstation owners don't.

 

[peter42O]

Blowing $77bn on two massive publishers, and publicly admitting you will be in the market for more is much worse. Even you have to admit that.

Elder Scrolls, Doom, Wolfenstein and yes Starfield will all be gatekept by MS going forward, Overwatch, Diablo and others will follow.

And I don't want to hear about x-Cloud, cloud gaming is shit and further expense if you're talking about £11 a month. And while I'm fortunate to have a gaming PC, plenty of Playstation owners don't.

When you only have 5 studios going into 2018 and then 13 including The Initiative going into 2020, I don't see buying Bethesda as being worse at all. First, they were for sale regardless of who likes that or not. Second, Microsoft direction and strategy is subscription based and it makes no sense to keep paying for licensed content when you acquire IP's and thus, have ownership of the content that you're putting on your subscription service. Third, while those games are locked to the Xbox eco-system, you still have more ways to play those games if you so choose. It's simply not on your preferred platform.

I don't see Microsoft saying that they're in the market for more acquisitions as a bad thing because first, it should be expected because how does anyone ever expect them to grow their platform and eco-system? Or did people think they could accomplish that with only 5 studios pre-2018?

Second, of course, im in favor of more acquisitions because as a consumer/gamer, it's better for me because I wouldn't have to buy those games anymore. While I buy games day one, im not stupid. I prefer to pay $10 for a monthly rental because why wouldn't I? Microsoft making profits and whatnot is their problem. Not mine. I don't sit on the board. lol

As for Cloud Streaming, it's probably 20 years away give or take but you can't get it where you want it to be if you don't start it to begin with. This aspect is for the future, not now. And too many people believe that this is around the corner when it's not.