Support NeoGAF

[SneakersSO]

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.

It is in a user acquisition phase, but the budget spent to acquire 1 new user is quite high. There is a scale point they have internally, but those figures have always been pretty unrealistic, given how the last couple of years went on growth.

I laid out in an earlier post that this ATVI deal ultimately solves 2 immediate issues they are having while trying to float these insane budgets along - they needed a platform they could grow on that wouldn't force them to take a 30% cut for integrating into their userbase (Battle.Net), and it would be an immediate and sustained revenue boost for the division itself, which has had a major hit due to whole title sales falling out from under them entirely.

So far, the big gambles they have made to grow a user out of naturally advantageous platforms/storefronts for them include their efforts to push more users into xCloud, and expanding the Xbox app to be a GP app and start having them ship with new-gen Smart TVs. Battle.Net will just keep them afloat while they hope some of their other bets for explosive growth payoff.

 

[Gobjuduck]

Sony actually helped finance that game. Some of the takes in this thread are awful.

Xbox helped finance starfield and all of Bethesda by acquiring them. The deal is just a much larger one.

 

[Lyrical]

Xbox helped finance starfield and all of Bethesda by acquiring them. The deal is just a much larger one.

It’s probably worth asking yourself if Starfield was going to be released with or without Xbox acquisition. The mental gymnastics at play here is crazy.

 

[Gobjuduck]

It’s probably worth asking yourself if Starfield was going to be released with or without Xbox acquisition.

Don’t know.

Considering the troubled development of starfield and Bethesda/zenimax’s financial state. Maybe they were looking at a similar situation that capcom was.

To finish starfield, maybe Bethesda had to be acquired.

 

[Warablo]

We wouldn't even be having these arguments if we didn't know Starfield existed. It doesn't matter if we knew Starfield was in development or not. Especially when we have no idea what state the game was/is in. Microsoft now owns Bethesda. They are a first party studio. They can release the game wherever they want.

 

[Lyrical]

Don’t know.

Considering the troubled development of starfield and Bethesda/zenimax’s financial state. Maybe they were looking at a similar situation that capcom was.

To finish starfield, maybe Bethesda had to be acquired.

Come on dude. No chance Starfield doesn’t get released. Also the acquisition prevents all future Bethesda games from releasing on ps5. But as we can see the new SF and other capcom games are releasing on Xbox. These two scenarios are not even remotely the same.

 

[xiskza]

People trying to compare both situations as equivalent are retarded.
Capcom needed Sony to fund SFV. After now having multiple successful projects they dont need their money anymore, which is why SF6 is coming out on all platforms again (minus Switch for now)

 

[Heisenberg007]

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.

But more importantly, SFV wouldn't have been made in the first place if not for Sony's funding and support.

Starfield, on the other hand, was already in development and announced.

 

[Cheezewizz]

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?

If you already knew, then why would you ask such a question?

Do I believe the next doom, wolfenstein, dishonored, or prey will release on Playstation? I have no idea, but if I had to guess, I would say probably not.

The question I have for you is this. Did anyone announce or promise that any of those games would release on Playstation in the future? Has Sony signed any deals to ensure that they will?

 

[Gobjuduck]

Also the acquisition prevents all future Bethesda games from releasing on ps5.

From now on Microsoft is funding those games, even starfield. Bethesda is now fully using Microsoft’s resources.

Starfield was early enough in the dev cycle to never grace the PlayStation. the deal between Xbox and Bethesda were in talks long before ps5 devkits were out.

Sony's funding and support.

Xbox is funding and supporting starfield. Xbox could have canceled it if they wanted to right after the acquisition. starfield wasn’t and still isn’t ready according to gaf.

 

[demigod]

If you already knew, then why would you ask such a question?

Do I believe the next doom, wolfenstein, dishonored, or prey will release on Playstation? I have no idea, but if I had to guess, I would say probably not.

The question I have for you is this. Did anyone announce or promise that any of those games would release on Playstation in the future? Has Sony signed any deals to ensure that they will?

Thanks for confirming that you don’t know how videogame businesses work.

 

[Cheezewizz]

It’s probably worth asking yourself if Starfield was going to be released with or without Xbox acquisition. The mental gymnastics at play here is crazy.

It's probably worth asking yourself why any of it matters.

 

[Cheezewizz]

Thanks for confirming that you don’t know how videogame businesses work.

Ahh. The classic "If only I were smarter" response.

You asked a question. I answered.
You asked another question. I answered.
I asked a question. You "You don't know how video game business works".

 

[demigod]

Ahh. The classic "If only I were smarter" response.

You asked a question. I answered.
You asked another question. I answered.
I asked a question. You "You don't know how video game business works".

If you’re not stupid you can figure it out. Or do you need me to tell you? You think it’s good business for Bethesda to stop releasing games on a platform that sold most of their games?

 

[Gobjuduck]

Thanks for confirming that you don’t know how videogame businesses work.

I may be wrong, but doesn’t every game release need to go through Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft?

If starfield was long enough in development to reach Sony and Microsofts approval, THEN maybe there is a point to starfield being yoinked.

I know indies complain with how difficult it is to get their game seen/approved by PlayStation.

I don’t think starfield was far enough in that process, atleast before the acquisition talks occurred.

 

[Heisenberg007]

From now on Microsoft is funding those games, even starfield. Bethesda is now fully using Microsoft’s resources.

Starfield was early enough in the dev cycle to never grace the PlayStation. the deal between Xbox and Bethesda were in talks long before ps5 devkits were out.


Xbox is funding and supporting starfield. Xbox could have canceled it if they wanted to right after the acquisition. starfield wasn’t and still isn’t ready according to gaf.

Nah, Starfield is a game that was already in development, and Bethesda's plan was to release it on both PlayStation and Xbox. Xbox acquired Bethesda and blocked the game from coming to PlayStation, while chanting "we want to bring games to more people, not less, on whatever device they want to play it on."

The lengths people go to defend something wrong. Wow.

 

[Cheezewizz]

If you’re not stupid you can figure it out. Or do you need me to tell you? You think it’s good business for Bethesda to stop releasing games on a platform that sold most of their games?

I'm smart enough to know that good business for Bethesda is determined by what's good business for Microsoft. Ya know, seeing as they own them.

Judging by our little conversation here, I'm pretty confident I'm not the stupid one.

 

[Gobjuduck]

Xbox acquired Bethesda and blocked the game from coming to PlayStation.

Womp womp

Xbox cant block something that was never PlayStation’s.

If xbox is so malicious with taking games away from sony, they would have taken deathloop and Ghostwire. But Sony had those, unlike starfield.

 

[demigod]

I'm smart enough to know that good business for Bethesda is determined by what's food business for Microsoft. Ya know, seeing as they own them.

Judging by our little conversation here, I'm pretty confident I'm not the stupid one.

Microsoft? But you were talking as if they were not in the equation as if Bethesda didn’t announced or promised the next iterations. Did you forget what you were replying to already? Not so smart now are ya.

Oh that’s right I remember now, you messed up your tv trying to swat a fly. NOT SMART pal.

 

[DForce]

Womp womp

Xbox cant block something that was never PlayStation’s.

If xbox is so malicious with taking games away from sony, they would have taken deathloop and Ghostwire. But Sony had those, unlike starfield.

You can block something that was planned to be released on PlayStation.

It shouldn't be that hard to admit that Starfield was planned to be released on PlayStation prior to the acquisition and Xbox decided to make it exclusive AFTER it was acquired.

They even told the EU regulators they had no plans to make it exclusive.

 

[Godot25]

Imagine crying about "Microsoft took away Starfield from PlayStation" while Sony wanted do make a deal for exclusivity of Starfield on PlayStation in similar way they did it with Deathloop and GhostWire.

 

[Godot25]

You can block something that was planned to be released on PlayStation.

It shouldn't be that hard to admit that Starfield was planned to be released on PlayStation prior to the acquisition and Xbox decided to make it exclusive AFTER it was acquired.

They even told the EU regulators they had no plans to make it exclusive.

You sure about that?

https://appuals.com/microsoft-didnt...lator-on-the-zenimax-deal-negates-ftcs-claim/

"Microsoft didn’t make any “commitments” to EU regulators not to release Xbox-exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media, the European Commission has said. US enforcers yesterday suggested that the US tech giant had misled the regulator in 2021 and cited that as a reason to challenge its proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard."

 

[DForce]

You sure about that?

https://appuals.com/microsoft-didnt...lator-on-the-zenimax-deal-negates-ftcs-claim/

"Microsoft didn’t make any “commitments” to EU regulators not to release Xbox-exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media, the European Commission has said. US enforcers yesterday suggested that the US tech giant had misled the regulator in 2021 and cited that as a reason to challenge its proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard."

You're late.

This has already been discussed.

The FTC said MS told the EU regulators that had no intentions of making Starfield exclusive. FTC never said they were committed to by means of a contractual agreement. That's one of the FTC's biggest concerns. MS is telling people they have no intentions of removing COD from PlayStation, but their word is meaningless if they're not obligated to.

 

[Godot25]

You're late.

This has already been discussed.

The FTC said MS told the EU regulators that had no intentions of making Starfield exclusive. FTC never said they were committed to by means of a contractual agreement. That's one of the FTC's biggest concerns. MS is telling people they have no intentions of removing COD from PlayStation, but their word is meaningless if they're not obligated to.

Outside of fact that Microsoft is offering legally enforceable 10-year deal for Sony (also for Nintendo) which invalidates entire discussion about Zenimax and Microsoft's promises, I have not seen any "proof" that Microsoft actually said this to EU regulators. And since documents are public, it should not be that hard to find it right?

It's literally pointless to argue about COD exclusivity, when you have legally binding contract for 10 years in your pocket. So why exactly are we talking about it?
Withdrawing COD from PlayStation would be insane. Starfield is singleplayer RPG game with no microtransactions (presumably) and no live service component. Game will be played and longevity would be decided because of mods which are not prevalent on PlayStation anyway. Call of Duty on the other hand is living and breathing thanks to their live service which is conditioned on as big audience as you can have.

Why the hell do you think Sony is willing to put their live service games on PC along PS5 day one? Because live service game need huge audience (especially f2p) to sustain support. Which is not true for Starfield. So all you do is comparing apples to oranges and you are wrapping everything around not verified statement while ignoring offered contract. All that while ignoring shining example of live service IP/game in form of Minecraft. Way to go.

 

[Lyrical]

I'm smart enough to know that good business for Bethesda is determined by what's food business for Microsoft. Ya know, seeing as they own them.

Judging by our little conversation here, I'm pretty confident I'm not the stupid one.

Probably worth asking yourself why do you care so much.

 

[Gobjuduck]

That's one of the FTC's biggest concerns. MS is telling people they have no intentions of removing COD from PlayStation, but their word is meaningless if they're not obligated to.

The concern has no merit. Xbox offered Sony 10 years of CoD, but they refused. Sony would rather cry to regulators, because they want a better deal. Xbox has kept minecraft multiplatform for a decade, even minecraft dungeons is on switch and ps4.

Starfield is an Xbox game, because it was early enough in development to not be anything like else.

 

[DForce]

Outside of fact that Microsoft is offering legally enforceable 10-year deal for Sony (also for Nintendo) which invalidates entire discussion about Zenimax and Microsoft's promises, I have not seen any "proof" that Microsoft actually said this to EU regulators. And since documents are public, it should not be that hard to find it right?

The claim by the FTC was countered by "Well we didn't commit to it."

The fact that they never denied makes what happened obvious.

 

[DForce]

The concern has no merit. Xbox offered Sony 10 years of CoD but refused. Xbox has kept minecraft multiplatform for a decade, even minecraft dungeons is on switch and ps4.

Starfield is an Xbox game, because it was so early in development.

Xbox has kept Minecraft for a decade? LOL

The game was RELEASED, they can't remove it.

It was planned to be released on PS before the acquisition. I don't know why you guys try to hard spin the facts.

 

[Godot25]

Xbox has kept Minecraft for a decade? LOL

The game was RELEASED, they can't remove it.

It was planned to be released on PS before the acquisition. I don't know why you guys try to hard spin the facts.

So why they released Minecraft Dungeons everywhere? And why they are releasing Minecraft Legends everywhere?

Also. Why would they could not removed it if they wanted? Remember PT? They could just drop it from PS Store to prevent future purchases to lean Minecraft players to play it not on PlayStation while keeping access to existing owners.

And I'm personally not claiming that Starfield would be Xbox exclusive without buyout (or it would be timed PlayStation exclusive as reported). Nope, game would be on PlayStation. But I still don't know what it has to do with Call of Duty and Activision Blizzard deal. Because I did not see any official statement from Microsoft that they will keep all Zenimax games multiplatform in future.

 

[Gobjuduck]

Xbox has kept Minecraft for a decade? LOL

The game was RELEASED, they can't remove it.

Minecraft dungeons, legends and more were not on PlayStation before Microsoft bought mojang.

 

[DForce]

Minecraft dungeons, legends and more were not on PlayStation before Microsoft bought mojang.

So why they released Minecraft Dungeons everywhere? And why they are releasing Minecraft Legends everywhere?

Also. Why would they could not removed it if they wanted? Remember PT? They could just drop it from PS Store to prevent future purchases to lean Minecraft players to play it not on PlayStation while keeping access to existing owners.

And I'm personally not claiming that Starfield would be Xbox exclusive without buyout (or it would be timed PlayStation exclusive as reported). Nope, game would be on PlayStation.

You guys are using Minecraft Dungeons as evidence that MS will not back out of their claim..

......YET, MS is releasing games and making them exclusive. If Minecraft was used as proof, then they wouldn't bother making other games exclusive.

But I still don't know what it has to do with Call of Duty and Activision Blizzard deal. Because I did not see any official statement from Microsoft that they will keep all Zenimax games multiplatform in future.

I literally mentioned it. Go back and read.

 

[Godot25]

You guys are using Minecraft Dungeons as evidence that MS will not back out of their claim..

......YET, MS is releasing games and making them exclusive. If Minecraft was used as proof, then they wouldn't bother making other games exclusive.


I literally mentioned it. Go back and read.

I mean. Yeah
Because Microsoft stated that Minecraft would be kept everywhere. And Dungeons and Legends are proof that they kept their word. And meanwhile you are pretending like dropping a game (Minecraft) from gaming store (PSN) would be impossible thing to do if they wanted to do it. And also, why would Microsoft made a PSVR version of Minecraft if they wanted to drop Minecraft from PlayStation?
Meanwhile they did not said anything remotely similar in case of Zenimax and any other purchases like Ninja Theory, Playground, Obsidian. On contrary - Ninja Theory literally stated in their first video after buyout that they will focus on Microsoft's platforms. Even after ZeniMax buyout they said "case by case" and I for example would not be surprised if next ZOS game would be multiplatform since it will probably be MMO.
In case of Activision they said that they will "Minecraft" Call of Duty series which should tell you anything you need to know. And they are offering legally enforceable contract for 10 years to back it up so they literally can't back out of their claim. So all that concern trolling is just that...concern trolling.

 

[Astray]

Personally I think it's extremely disingenuous to suggest that Bethesda, a company that probably released Skyrim and Doom on your smart fridge, somehow thinks that excluding Sony on Starfield (a game that likely costed them tons of money) is a great idea for any AA/AAA project. Or that Ninja Theory suddenly decided to release a GAAS game that excludes the largest home console community.

The economics for doing these decisions while independent just don't make sense whatsoever. They make sense when Bill Gates cash enters the fray tho.

I may be wrong, but doesn’t every game release need to go through Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft?

You're talking about licensing, certification and disc printing, those are different processes that a dev has to go through once they officially want to release a game on a platform (last one is now optional, plenty of smaller devs forego physical releases).

 

[DForce]

I mean. Yeah
Because Microsoft stated that Minecraft would be kept everywhere. And Dungeons and Legends are proof that they kept their word. And meanwhile you are pretending like dropping a game (Minecraft) from gaming store (PSN) would be impossible thing to do if they wanted to do it. And also, why would Microsoft made a PSVR version of Minecraft if they wanted to drop Minecraft from PlayStation?
Meanwhile they did not said anything remotely similar in case of Zenimax and any other purchases like Ninja Theory, Playground, Obsidian. On contrary - Ninja Theory literally stated in their first video after buyout that they will focus on Microsoft's platforms. Even after ZeniMax buyout they said "case by case" and I for example would not be surprised if next ZOS game would be multiplatform since it will probably be MMO.
In case of Activision they said that they will "Minecraft" Call of Duty series which should tell you anything you need to know. And they are offering legally enforceable contract for 10 years to back it up so they literally can't back out of their claim. So all that concern trolling is just that...concern trolling.

They didn't keep their word based on what they told the EU regulators, a claim that Microsoft never denied.

You're using Minecraft, a 10-year-old game as proof that MS will not remove it from PlayStation (I'm not talking about the side games) when you know they can't remove it from PlayStation. It's dumb to even use this as an example.

They didn't say anything similar to Ninja Theory, Playground, and Obsidian? They're smaller studios. Do you think the regulators were looking at Ninja Theory the same way as Zenimax and Activision? LOL

The amount of reach you guys do is ridiculous.

I repeat, The FTF said MS told the EU regulators they had no plans to remove Starfield and Redfall from PlayStation, a claim that was never denied by MS, but only responded by saying, "we made no commitment."

 

[reksveks]

Bobby will be on CNBC today it seems, probably mostly about results and the merger but unlikely to be interesting imo (jynxing it)

 

[Gobjuduck]

The amount of reach you guys do is ridiculous.

You define ridiculous.

 

[DForce]

You define ridiculous.

If xbox is so malicious with taking games away from sony, they would have taken deathloop and Ghostwire. But Sony had those, unlike starfield.

This is the type of stuff you're saying.

Deathloop and Ghostwire deals were made before MS acquired them, so they couldn't take it away even if they wanted to.

 

[Gobjuduck]

they couldn't take it away even if they wanted to.

They could have broken the agreement, at whatever the agreed cost would be.

This all doesn’t matter. Starfield was never announced for PlayStation. It wasn’t taken away lol.

I’m done with the discussion. You are die hard saying Xbox isn’t faithful to their word in acquisitions, even when we pulled multiple examples.

 

[Banjo64]

They could have broken the agreement, at whatever the agreed cost would be.

This all doesn’t matter. Starfield was never announced for PlayStation. It wasn’t taken away lol.

I’m done with the discussion. You are die hard saying Xbox isn’t faithful to their word in acquisitions, even when we pulled multiple examples.

They aren’t.

 

[DForce]

They could have broken the agreement, at whatever the agreed cost would be.

They can't.

This all doesn’t matter. Starfield was never announced for PlayStation. It wasn’t taken away lol.

I’m done with the discussion. You are die hard saying Xbox isn’t faithful to their word, even when we pulled multiple examples.

The point was that it wasn't going to be exclusive until they were acquired by MS and they lied to the EU by saying they had no reason to make it exclusive.


So yes, this discussion is over.

 

[Gobjuduck]

they lied to the EU by saying they had no reason to make it exclusive.

Link it.

 

[demigod]

They could have broken the agreement, at whatever the agreed cost would be.

This all doesn’t matter. Starfield was never announced for PlayStation. It wasn’t taken away lol.

I’m done with the discussion. You are die hard saying Xbox isn’t faithful to their word in acquisitions, even when we pulled multiple examples.

They aren’t.

 

[Daniel_Mallorca1985]

 

[Gobjuduck]

They aren’t.

They can't.

They aren’t.

Three stooges. Send a link where the contradiction/lie is from Microsoft’s acquisitions.

 

[demigod]

Three stooges. Send a link where the contradiction/lie is from Microsoft’s acquisitions.

Throwing insults now eh? I thought you were done with the discussion, or was that a lie just like ms? They gave you links already bud, time to accept reality.

 

[Godot25]

They didn't keep their word based on what they told the EU regulators, a claim that Microsoft never denied.

You're using Minecraft, a 10-year-old game as proof that MS will not remove it from PlayStation (I'm not talking about the side games) when you know they can't remove it from PlayStation. It's dumb to even use this as an example.

They didn't say anything similar to Ninja Theory, Playground, and Obsidian? They're smaller studios. Do you think the regulators were looking at Ninja Theory the same way as Zenimax and Activision? LOL

The amount of reach you guys do is ridiculous.

I repeat, The FTF said MS told the EU regulators they had no plans to remove Starfield and Redfall from PlayStation, a claim that was never denied by MS, but only responded by saying, "we made no commitment."

Again. Why would they could not remove Minecraft from PlayStation Store? Delisting is common thing and it happens often. Also, you again ignored Minecraft Dungeons and Legends which Microsoft had no obligation to put on PlayStation or Switch, but they did. You also ignored PSVR version of Minecraft that Microsoft did not need to do, but they did it anyway. So Microsoft said that Minecraft will stay anywhere and they kept their promise.

I'm not saying that they had to defend Ninja Theory/Obsidian etc. purchases in front of regulators. I used them as a proof when Microsoft said when their content moving forward will be exclusive. In case of Double Fine they said "promised things would be fulfilled" and they kept their word. Same for inXile (Wasteland 3), Obsidian (The Outer Worlds), Bethesda (GhostWire and Deathloop exclusivity).

And again, you ignoring (conveniently of course) 10-year legally enforceable deal that will make sure that Microsoft will be releasing Call of Duty on PlayStation. So this whole argument about "Microsoft broke their promises" is literally pointless, when you have binding document in your hands. But yeah. Keep arguing about literally nothing.

 

[Banjo64]

Link it.

At least quote the right person

Read their Zenimax EU submission. They said they have no incentive to withhold Zenimax titles from rival consoles.

They are now withholding Zenimax titles from rival consoles.

You can tie yourself up in knots to explain ‘wElL AkShuaLLy thAt’s not tEcHNically A LiE’ but it will just make you look like a muppet. Please go ahead though.

 

[Godot25]

Read their Zenimax EU submission. They said they have no incentive to withhold Zenimax titles from rival consoles.

So, ZeniMax said it? Not Microsoft?

What is all that fluff about then? Of course ZeniMax as a separate company have no incentive to withhold ZeniMax titles from rival consoles. Because they were 3rd party publisher that benefited from "as wide as possible" target audience. It's like...duh? no shit Sherlock.

But Microsoft of course had incentive to withhold ZeniMax titles from rival console because they have consoles to sell and subscription service to build.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Still arguing over what amounts to semantics.

Had Microsoft not acquired Bethesda, in all likelihood Starfield would be coming to all platforms (and if the rumor is to be believed, might have even had a timed exclusivity deal on PS5).

But Microsoft did acquire Bethesda, and unlike Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo, Starfield did not have a contract in place with Sony yet, and no platforms were announced for the game.

If people want to believe Starfield was taken away from Playstation, then they have to believe that FF7R was taken away from Xbox.

If you're okay with FF7R exclusivity being bought, you should be okay with Starfield's exclusivity being bought. On the consumer level, they're both the same.

To have the opinion that one is okay but the other isn't, is just showing your bias. Be against it, or for it.

The arguing really boils down to people attacking each other's bias. "They complained about FF7R not coming to Xbox but is all of a sudden okay with Starfield being exclusive?!" Or "They like that Playstation has all these exclusivity deals but take issue with Xbox getting exclusives now?!"

Me personally, I understand platforms are going to get exclusivity. I don't view it as bad. I'm okay with FF7R and SFV being only on Playstation, and I'm okay with Starfield and Elder Scrolls only being on Xbox. If FF9R was only on PS5, I'd say okay, I need a PS5. And FF9 is probably my favourite game of all time. I'd also be okay with Sony acquiring Square Enix because I was okay with Microsoft acquiring Bethesda/Zenimax.

 

[Gobjuduck]

They are now withholding Zenimax titles from rival consoles.

Uh? Starfield is not withheld from rival consoles. It was never announced for ps.

Plus

The EU agency found that even if Microsoft were to restrict access to ZeniMax titles, it wouldn't have a significant impact on competition because rivals wouldn't be denied access to an "essential input," and other consoles would still have a "large array" of attractive content.

Seems like the EU is cool with Xbox and doesn’t agreee they were lied to.