Support NeoGAF

[Warablo]

I expect when either company buys a studio their next releasing games will be exclusive. At least on Console+PC at this point.

 

[Cheezewizz]

I have to wonder, after looking at some of these recent posts here about the Starfield & Elder Scrolls future games' exclusivity status and whether or not there were PS5 versions in development prior to the buyout announcement in September 2020, or perhaps even up to the March 2021 end closing date of Microsoft's acquisition of Zenimax ... do some people here think that Todd Howard wouldn't eventually be put in a court setting for sworn testimony on this issue if the FTC keeps fighting against the deal and files an injunction and takes Microsoft to U.S. federal court? Like, what do people here think Todd Howard would say in response to a judge or a lawyer else asking him in a courtroom if they had Starfield well into development with PS5 dev kits and on Bethesda's initial plans for the next Elder Scrolls game in about 2-5 years from now, prior to Microsoft buying out Zenimax?

Whether Howard would be called to testify, I have no idea.

The more important question is, why would you believe they'd ask him that or even consider it relevant to begin with.

Let's pretend for a moment that this scenario plays out just as you described, and they had initially planned on releasing it on PS5. How is that relevant?

 

[DForce]

I think a majority of people understand that without the acquisition, Starfield not only would have come to PS5 but most likely would have been a 12 month or more exclusive. But idk why you’d be surprised people think otherwise,

My post was in reply to the person who said we don't know if it would have appeared on PS5.

we still to this day on this forum have people who say Street Fighter V like totally wouldn’t have even been made if Sony didn’t step in and save it.

Because people in the fighting game community are always saying this, even people who know people who work at Capcom.

Street Fighter V was in development hell and they wasted a lot of money after canceled versions of Street Fighter V. Sony stepped in with the funding in return to make it exclusive.

Capcom was going through trouble at the time, especially after Street Fighter X Tekken and Marvel vs Capcom 3 failed.

 

[reinking]

You literally can't spin this. lol

We have conformation that it was planned, but there's no confirmation that there was a third-party deal being talked about with Microsoft.

 

[Cheezewizz]

Is it really checkmate though?

Checkmate because the only people it's relevant to are people such as yourself?

Or Checkmate because you won't be able to play it on PS?

 

[reinking]

Is it really checkmate though?

Checkmate because the only people it's relevant to are people such as yourself?

Or Checkmate because you won't be able to play it on PS?.

I have an XBSX and a gaming PC. I think someone such as myself will be okay.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

My post was in reply to the person who said we don't know if it would have appeared on PS5.


Because people in the fighting game community are always saying this, even people who know people who work at Capcom.

Street Fighter V was in development hell and they wasted a lot of money after canceled versions of Street Fighter V. Sony stepped in with the funding in return to make it exclusive.

Capcom was going through trouble at the time, especially after Street Fighter X Tekken and Marvel vs Capcom 3 failed.

See, this right here that you’re doing, is just as silly a someone claiming a PlayStation version of Starfield wasn’t a certainty.

 

[Heisenberg007]

You literally can't spin this. lol

We have conformation that it was planned, but there's no confirmation that there was a third-party deal being talked about with Microsoft.

"Exclusivity [for Starfield] wasn't a consideration until we got bought by Xbox."

DarkMage619 - this settles the debate then. Xbox did take away Starfield from PlayStation after the acquisition. Without the acquisition, the game would have released on all platforms and to more gamers.

 

[DForce]

See, this right here that you’re doing, is just as silly a someone claiming a PlayStation version of Starfield wasn’t a certainty.

What I'm doing has been reported by many insiders. Mind you, many people in the fighting game community also work close with Capcom and are closely tied within the industry.

I watch Maximilian Dood all the time, well connected with the developers of Capcom and he's always bringing up how Sony helped save Street Fighter V. I trust him more than...you of course.

 

[graywolf323]

I watch Maximilian Dood all the time, well connected with the developers of Capcom and he's always bringing up how Sony helped save Street Fighter V. I trust him more than...you of course.

just chiming in that while I’m not a huge fighting game person, Maximillian Dood is awesome and just such a joy to watch

and yeah Starfield is in no way the same situation as Street Fighter V

 

[RickMasters]

just chiming in that while I’m not a huge fighting game person, Maximillian Dood is awesome and just such a joy to watch

and yeah Starfield is in no way the same situation as Street Fighter V

Yeah I watch his and justin wong's vids. They are almost as good as me at fighting games.

 

[Heisenberg007]

What I'm doing has been reported by many insiders. Mind you, many people in the fighting game community also work close with Capcom and are closely tied within the industry.

I watch Maximilian Dood all the time, well connected with the developers of Capcom and he's always bringing up how Sony helped save Street Fighter V. I trust him more than...you of course.

To support you, it's well-documented that Capcom did not have the budget for Street Fighter 5. They were in dire shape. Capcom's sales had dropped by 51% and profits by 39%.

Yoshinori Ono also confirmed this; here is one instance:



Sony helped survive the franchise by funding the game, even if they didn't have ownership of the IP. It is the exact same case as Microsoft funding Sunset Overdrive. Nobody complains about that.

 

[ChiefDada]

So, your answer is "accounting". Congratulations, that's a concept older than the civilisation you're currently living in. By your metric, Sony must be lying about its record breaking profits too, right? Surely, I'll find posts from you in that thread explaining Sony's lies?

If you want to accuse companies of large-scale criminal fraud, don't waste my time with this bullshit and bring something serious to the table.

Sony filed a 10-Q within SEC regulations with financials audited and signed off on by a global public accounting firm. Your dear Uncle Phil said some words in an interview. They are not the same.

 

[Varteras]

DarkMage619 - this settles the debate then. Xbox did take away Starfield from PlayStation after the acquisition. Without the acquisition, the game would have released on all platforms and to more gamers.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

What I'm doing has been reported by many insiders. Mind you, many people in the fighting game community also work close with Capcom and are closely tied within the industry.

I watch Maximilian Dood all the time, well connected with the developers of Capcom and he's always bringing up how Sony helped save Street Fighter V. I trust him more than...you of course.

Capcom themselves literally said the game would have come anyway, just might have taken longer.

You: LOL u think Bethesda wouldn’t release Starfield on PlayStation, how could anyone think like that

Also you: uh ackshually SFIV was incredibly successful but Capcom still would have just decided to not make a sequel unless Sony didn’t descend from heaven and save the company


At least be consistent in your warring.

 

[Cheezewizz]

DarkMage619 - this settles the debate then. Xbox did take away Starfield from PlayStation after the acquisition. Without the acquisition, the game would have released on all platforms and to more gamers.

No, Xbox chose not to release Starfield on Playstation. "Taking it away" from Playstation would imply it was released on that console, and then removed from it.

Playstation never "had" Starfield, was never promised it, and isn't entitled to it.

 

[DForce]

Capcom themselves literally said the game would have come anyway, just might have taken longer.

You: LOL u think Bethesda wouldn’t release Starfield on PlayStation, how could anyone think like that

Also you: uh ackshually SFIV was incredibly successful but Capcom still would have just decided to not make a sequel unless Sony didn’t descend from heaven and save the company


At least be consistent in your warring.

Quote Capcom and not their PR response where they just partnered with Sony just to explore opportunities.

Look at Heisenberg007 post. Capcom was close to bankruptcy and you believe they had enough funding to develop Street Fighter

You're literally talking about Capcom who failed to reboot Darkstalkers and put out a low budget for Marvel vs Capcom infinite. You expect them to nearly develop SFV after being rebooted after the budget was nearly depleted.

Stating facts and information that has been told for years is not warring, you damage controlling everything is.

 

[Crayon]

I've worked within the industry for a long time. Have colleagues within all levels of publishers with knowledge on these and similar matters.

Game Pass has not been profitable. The only angle it can be evaluated as being of any profit value, from what i've heard from folks with knowledge of the matter, is when its assessed as a vertical integration asset thanks to Azure integration for most of these titles/studios that are running on it now. The more users being served by Azure, the more profitable that division gets, which is one of their fastest growing divisions by revenue. Azure's natural expansion due to the expansion of Xbox has been the only way Game Pass has ever come close to being viewed as worth the level of investment put forth (thus far).

I figured it was considered in a user acquisition phase and worth dumping money into. That's interesting that it's possibly viewed like you describe in the company.

 

[Heisenberg007]

No, Xbox chose not to release Starfield on Playstation. "Taking it away" from Playstation would imply it was released on that console, and then removed from it.

Playstation never "had" Starfield, was never promised it, and isn't entitled to it.

Potato Patato.

It is the same thing, i.e., Starfield was coming to PlayStation. Xbox bought Zenimax and made the game exclusive (stopped it from coming to PlayStation), according to Pete Hines himself.

 

[Gobjuduck]

Sony helped save Street Fighter V.

Sure did save it…

Why is 6 multi-platform this time? If Sony’s involvement was so vital? Actually after that, Sony hasn’t gotten any exclusive deals with capcom.

Look, persona and yakuza went multiplatform and it’s done wonders for those series. It’s a death sentence for fighting games to be exclusive. All the exclusive fighting games drop off, they need as many players as possible. Financing a troubled project through exclusivity doesn’t work for niche fighters.

 

[DForce]

Sure did save it…

Why is 6 multi-platform this time? If Sony’s involvement was so vital? Actually after that, Sony hasn’t gotten any exclusive deals with capcom.

Look, persona and yakuza went multiplatform and it’s done wonders for those series. It’s a death sentence for fighting games to be exclusive. All the exclusive fighting games drop off, they need as many players as possible.

Because Capcom is in a much better financial situation this time. They have made better moves ever since 2017.

Persona and Yakuza wouldn't be on Xbox if it wasn't for Microsoft funding the ports and putting the game on Game Pass. Persona was popular on Game Pass, but sales weren't huge on the platform.

Japanese publishers aren't going to put games on the platform if they expect sales to be low.

 

[ZehDon]

Sony filed a 10-Q within SEC regulations with financials audited and signed off on by a global public accounting firm. Your dear Uncle Phil said some words in an interview. They are not the same.

No, Xbox's head make a public statement about the profit and loss of the company. In the USA, that's binding, and making false statements of this nature constitutes fraud. It's literally illegal for "Uncle Phil" to say "some words in an interview" that aren't true when it comes to profitability. So, actually, they are the same. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Heisenberg007]

No, Xbox's head make a public statement about the profit and loss of the company. In the USA, that's binding, and making false statements of this nature constitutes fraud. It's literally illegal for "Uncle Phil" to say "some words in an interview" that aren't true when it comes to profitability. So, actually, they are the same. Thanks for stopping by.

If I recall correctly, nobody was discussing whether Microsft is profitable or not. It is undebatable because we can see Microsoft's legally-binding financials every quarter.

 

[ZehDon]

That wasn't the discussion. Nobody was discussing whether Microsft is profitable or not. It is undebatable because we can see Microsoft's legally-binding financials every quarter.

I'm not sure why you've posted this, as it's clear as day what I was referring to. To ensure there is no confusion, allow me to explain. In my post, the phrase "of the company" would refer to the individual aspects of the company as a whole, such as, but not limited to, its individual departments and business endeavours. Under this umbrella, you'll find the Game Pass subscription service offered by the Xbox divison. If Phil Spencer stated that Game Pass was profitable, than this forms a component of Microsoft's business, as it forms a component of XBox's business. In my post, the wording "of the company" is a shorthand method to describe the above relationship. Therefore, when Phil Spencer states "Game Pass is profitable", he making a public statement regarding the profitability "of the company" as he is directly stating a business endeavour "of the company" is profitable.

 

[ChiefDada]

No, Xbox's head make a public statement about the profit and loss of the company. In the USA, that's binding, and making false statements of this nature constitutes fraud. It's literally illegal for "Uncle Phil" to say "some words in an interview" that aren't true when it comes to profitability. So, actually, they are the same.

Wrong again, Timmy. Phil is very clever with his words; the direct quote was "it is profitable for us (Microsoft)". I am very familiar with US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), which dictates how companies report financials for the sake of fair comparisons between companies. Are you familiar with quarterly and annual statements from publicly traded companies? There's an interesting section just before the nitty gritty, audited/regulated financials called Management Discussion and Analysis. In this section, even the most financially destitute companies are legally allowed to paint the rosiest pictures of their operational and financial performance. They can even come up with their own special equations for how they believe profit should be calculated. But if you pay attention, there's always a key statement in the MD&A section that reads something like this: "This section has not been audited, is not in accordance with GAAP, and are strictly the opinions of company management. That is the disclaimer that should trigger in your brain whenever you hear company executives hype up their firm. That goes double for your dear Uncle Phil.

Thanks for stopping by.

My pleasure, ol' sport.

 

[3liteDragon]

No, Xbox chose not to release Starfield on Playstation. "Taking it away" from Playstation would imply it was released on that console, and then removed from it.

Playstation never "had" Starfield, was never promised it, and isn't entitled to it.

MS-Activision thread: Come for the news & discussion, stay for the smooth-brain takes & spins.

 

[DarkMage619]

Exactly how this works. You claim these were MS exclusives.

Proof provided by you? None.

Nope I gave my list of games that still came out. Still waiting for that list of MS canceled announced PlayStation titles from you.

 

[ZehDon]

... Phil is very clever with his words; the direct quote was "it is profitable for us (Microsoft)"... even the most financially destitute companies are legally allowed to paint the rosiest pictures of their operational and financial performance. They can even come up with their own special equations for how they believe profit should be calculated...

So, the "Word Games" narrative. I should highlight that this is one is actually different to the "Creative Accounting" narrative, in that "word games" says that Microsoft will eventually report Game Pass as a massive loss, whereas "creative accounting" stipulates that they'll shift the loss somewhere else to hide it forever. The amusing thing about either of these theories is that they run counter to one another. So, let's ignore the fact that your narrative relies entirely on Phil's use of two words ("for us") (a common phrase: "us at Xbox", "Halo is important to us") and let's see what you've got: how did Phil calculate the profitability of Xbox such that it'll need to be reported differently?

 

[X-Wing]

No, Xbox chose not to release Starfield on Playstation. "Taking it away" from Playstation would imply it was released on that console, and then removed from it.

Playstation never "had" Starfield, was never promised it, and isn't entitled to it.

 

[Topher]

Without the acquisition, the game would have released on all platforms and to more gamers.

That much is just common sense.

 

[Cheezewizz]

MS-Activision thread: Come for the news & discussion, stay for the smooth-brain takes & spins.

No spin required.

How else would you describe it then?

 

[Three]

No spin required.

How else would you describe it then?

A game that would have come to more platforms no longer is. You don't need to invent some "release and take away" scenario.

 

[ChiefDada]

So, the "Word Games" narrative. I should highlight that this is one is actually different to the "Creative Accounting" narrative, in that "word games" says that Microsoft will eventually report Game Pass as a massive loss, whereas "creative accounting" stipulates that they'll shift the loss somewhere else to hide it forever.

So, let's ignore the fact that your narrative relies entirely on Phil's use of two words ("for us")

It doesn't; my point would still stand. I am saying the "for us" was an intentional attempt by Phil Spencer to provide as much flexibility over how they define profitability within the context of game pass.

how did Phil calculate the profitability of Xbox such that it'll need to be reported differently?

I never said this; remember my initial response challenged your belief that it was illegal in US for execs to make false (though I'd perfer the term "highly subjective" and/or "misleading") statements in an interview. But yeah we would all love to know how Phil and Microsoft calculate Game pass profitability. It's the billion dollar question, second only to the $69 billion question for which the answer is beginning to look bleak.

 

[Cheezewizz]

Potato Patato.

It is the same thing, i.e., Starfield was coming to PlayStation. Xbox bought Zenimax and made the game exclusive (stopped it from coming to PlayStation), according to Pete Hines himself.

No... It's really not. You literally can't take something away if they never had it.

You did prove that Starfield wasn't an exclusive to Xbox when Bethesda was acquired, so congratulations for that. As far as the acquisition goes though, what relevance does this have?

 

[ZehDon]

It doesn't; my point would still stand. I am saying the "for us" was an intentional attempt by Phil Spencer to provide as much flexibility over how they define profitability within the context of game pass.

"It doesn't", except, apparently... it does?

I never said this; remember my initial response challenged your belief that it was illegal in US for execs to make false ... statements in an interview...

Not quite: I said it was illegal for company heads to make false statements regarding the profit and loss of their companies. Which it is. Spencer is free to get on his soap box and proclaim (yet again) that "this year is the year, guys!" even if it (surprise!) isn't. What he can't do is make statements that would lead an investor or shareholder to believe that the company, or its business endeavours, is profitable, when he knows it is not. You can debate the definition of "profitable", but then you're actually just discussing accounting - if Microsoft's reported accounting says it's profitable, then that's really the end of the story: Game Pass is profitable as best anyone can and will ever know. If you believe Phil Spencer is deliberately misleading Microsoft's investors with his public statements, I'd love to see your evidence.

 

[Cheezewizz]

A game that would have come to more platforms no longer is. You don't need to invent some "release and take away" scenario.

Sure, just like almost every 3rd party game Sony paid to keep exclusive to Playstation.

The sad part is that literally nobody is or has claimed that Sony was "taking those games" away from Xbox. They were/are merely exclusives. The only scenario being invented here is the one where Xbox "took games" away from Playstation. As if that wasn't stupid enough, that scenario is regarding games that haven't even been released yet.

 

[Three]

So, the "Word Games" narrative. I should highlight that this is one is actually different to the "Creative Accounting" narrative, in that "word games" says that Microsoft will eventually report Game Pass as a massive loss, whereas "creative accounting" stipulates that they'll shift the loss somewhere else to hide it forever. The amusing thing about either of these theories is that they run counter to one another. So, let's ignore the fact that your narrative relies entirely on Phil's use of two words ("for us") (a common phrase: "us at Xbox", "Halo is important to us") and let's see what you've got: how did Phil calculate the profitability of Xbox such that it'll need to be reported differently?

Likely by not counting any of the $80B cost to secure content and increase subs as a "gamepass cost". Nor the budgets for first party development with reduced sales as a "gamepass cost". It could be any number of ways that "gamepass" can be considered profitable for them and we won't know, MS are very secretive when it comes to numbers. The point is that we will never know and they haven't broken a law by saying it. They can balance that book in different ways.

Sure, just like almost every 3rd party game Sony paid to keep exclusive to Playstation.

The sad part is that literally nobody is or has claimed that Sony was "taking those games" away from Xbox. They were/are merely exclusives. The only scenario being invented here is the one where Xbox "took games" away from Playstation. As if that wasn't stupid enough, that scenario is regarding games that haven't even been released yet.

Really, nobody? Darkmage did for one. He calls it "actively denying xbox games".

 

[demigod]

No... It's really not. You literally can't take something away if they never had it.

You did prove that Starfield wasn't an exclusive to Xbox when Bethesda was acquired, so congratulations for that. As far as the acquisition goes though, what relevance does this have?

So do you believe that Doom, Wolfenstein, Dishonored and Prey will all turn up on Playstation?

 

[Edmund]

The pro-acquisition clowns at Resetera are once again feeling confident that the deal will go through.

 

[Gobjuduck]

A game that would have come to more platforms no longer is. You don't need to invent some "release and take away" scenario.

Xbox did not take away starfield. Sony was left on read when they tried getting exclusivity for starfield. Bethesda was using starfield to increase their value to Microsoft.

Microsoft would only be taking away starfield if Bethesda had any sort of deal with Sony, which they didn’t. Cant take something Sony never had, regardless of assumption. All the games sony had, they got.

Xbox isn’t taking away elder scrolls 6. Xbox isn’t taking away fallout 5. Because Sony has no claim to those series.

Xbox acquired Bethesda, they didn’t take away Bethesda.

Sony acquired bungie, but part of that deal was to remain a third party subsidiary. For bungie to be first party, Sony would have had to pay much more. With Bethesda, they were willing to be first party under Microsoft.

as for Activision, Microsoft already made it clear they plan to act as a third party for 10 years (at least).

The pro-acquisition clowns at Resetera are once again feeling confident that the deal will go through.

Arguments against it going through are pretty weak. When actual anti-competitive consolidations have slipped through.

Xbox is locked in third place, buying Activision isn’t harming the competition. Sonys worries of parity and exclusivity are hypocritical.

Plus Xbox has been more confident about the deal, so have investors. Who knows, maybe sony will get 15 years of cod.

 

[Alex Scott]

The pro-acquisition clowns at Resetera are once again feeling confident that the deal will go through.

It can, but with what kind of concessions.

 

[freefornow]

A game that would have come to more platforms

Shouldnt that be "may have". Wasnt Sony looking at exclusivity for it? (correct me if I'm wrong. There has just been so much stuff posted it hard to keep track of factual information)

 

[Heisenberg007]

Nope I gave my list of games that still came out. Still waiting for that list of MS canceled announced PlayStation titles from you.

I already shared it and tagged you as well. You've just been ignoring it.

"Exclusivity [for Starfield] wasn't a consideration until we got bought by Xbox." -- Pete Hines, Zenimax.

DarkMage619 - this settles the debate then. Xbox did take away Starfield from PlayStation after the acquisition. Without the acquisition, the game would have released on all platforms and to more gamers.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Shouldnt that be "may have". Wasnt Sony looking at exclusivity for it? (correct me if I'm wrong. There has just been so much stuff posted it hard to keep track of factual information)

No, just an unsubstantiated rumor by one person.

The other part of that rumor has already been proven wrong, so there is little reason to believe that Sony was getting a timed-exclusivity for Starfield.

 

[Cheezewizz]

So do you believe that Doom, Wolfenstein, Dishonored and Prey will all turn up on Playstation?

No.

I believe they already have.

You don't get out much do you?

 

[Yoboman]

DarkMage619 - this settles the debate then. Xbox did take away Starfield from PlayStation after the acquisition. Without the acquisition, the game would have released on all platforms and to more gamers.

But would I be able to play it with the power of the cloud?

 

[Cheezewizz]

Likely by not counting any of the $80B cost to secure content and increase subs as a "gamepass cost". Nor the budgets for first party development with reduced sales as a "gamepass cost". It could be any number of ways that "gamepass" can be considered profitable for them and we won't know, MS are very secretive when it comes to numbers. The point is that we will never know and they haven't broken a law by saying it. They can balance that book in different ways.


Really, nobody? Darkmage did for one. He calls it "actively denying xbox games".

To be fair, "denying" someone or something a game would be considered an acceptable description. Denying someone of something is to prevent or block someone from getting it.

So yeah... to my knowledge, nobody's claiming they took them away from xbox.

 

[Lyrical]

Not sure why Street fighter V is brought up as a counter argument for Starfields exclusivity. As pointed out by many members, Sony actually helped finance that game. Some of the takes in this thread are awful.

 

[demigod]

No.

I believe they already have.

You don't get out much do you?

Alright since you want to be disingenuous which i knew you would be, let me ask the question again. Do you believe that the next iterations of Doom, Wolfenstein, Dishonored and Prey will all turn up on Playstation?

 

[ZehDon]

Likely by not counting any of the $80B cost to secure content and increase subs as a "gamepass cost". Nor the budgets for first party development with reduced sales as a "gamepass cost".

Should Microsoft also mark down the money it didn't earn from sales it didn't make of games that don't exist from companies it didn't build because it had access to third party content for Game Pass and so it didn't need to create them also be marked down as "Game Pass cost"? Do all of the additional digital sales revenue from games, movies, music, and TV shows purchased from Xbox Series X|S consoles that were sold as Game Pass Machines get marked down as "Game Pass profit"?

It could be any number of ways that "gamepass" can be considered profitable for them and we won't know, MS are very secretive when it comes to numbers. The point is that we will never know and they haven't broken a law by saying it. They can balance that book in different ways...

If we want to play the "word games" narrative to its conclusion, then we absolutely can know, because we already know: they told us. Arguing that "actually, under my definition of profitable..." doesn't really float, because your definition doesn't matter. There's always more than one definition of "profitable" because "accounting" has been a thing for more than a few centuries now. The only definition that actually matters is the one applicable to the accounting standards of the person reporting. Do you think Phil Spencer is lying when he says "Game Pass is profitable?". Unless he wants to end his career, the answer is self-evidently no.