They better hope Starfield isn't a bomba. If that game is anything short of BotW, GOW, or Elden Ring levels of quality its going to be a tough couple years for Phil-Sama.
It's abundantly clear now, at least to me, why and how important the Bethesda acquisition was for them. All of their big blockbuster games going forward are essentially former multiplatform Beth titles/franchises.
Bethesda doesn't miss with their single player RPGs. Starfield, just like their past singleplayer outings, will be an excellent, even legendary, release just like past games that have been played for years. Avowed isn't a Bethesda multi-plat game. And even then none of that stuff matters. Starfield was never announced for Playstation in the first place, neither was Hi-Fi Rush or Elder Scrolls 6. Either it's cause they were next-gen so there was no need, or because Bethesda were actively shopping the games. Deathloop and Ghostwire suggest they potentially were. Sony made a move, and Microsoft made a bigger and better offer.
People only care about the games being good. This weird definition of what counts and doesn't count is all a dumb game that people play. Many games are sold and shopped to publishers just like the studios that eventually get acquired. People often confuse why Sony was and still is buying studios for over 20 years of Playstation, especially in those earlier years. It's how Sony has built its games business, through a combination of acquisitions and strategic public investments in other games companies.
Game console architectures aren't as crazy different today as they use to be back then, which is usually why today you'll see far fewer major third-party exclusives. Sony bought their studios and IP as Microsoft did. That exclusive relationship Sony had with a studio was more to do about what made the most financial/technical sense for the studio at that moment. Sony wanted to lock down not only the IP they personally published (or maybe the studio behind it) but also any future new games and IPs that were being planned by that studio also.
Hi-Fi Rush is an example of that on the Xbox side. It was pitched back in 2017. Avowed was pitched to Microsoft in 2018, well before we ever knew a thing about it.
https://www.ign.com/articles/obsidian-xbox-acquisition-strategy-staying-out-way
When Feargus Urquhart walked into a 2018 pitch meeting with then-Xbox senior director of business development Noah Musler, he thought he was pitching Avowed. But what he was really pitching was the entirety of Obsidian Entertainment.
They were having breakfast at that year’s E3, just after Xbox announced it was acquiring Undead Labs, Playground Games, Ninja Theory, and Compulsion Games, as well as establishing The Initiative. At the time, Urquhart wasn’t even aware of the industry-shaking news. He was, as he tells me, “plugged into his own stuff,” focused on making Avowed look as appealing as possible to people like Musler who could potentially help Obsidian get it out the door in a few years. He made the pitch for Avowed. Musler responded by suggesting Urquhart repeat his pitch again…this time in a bigger room, with more Xbox folks listening in.
It wasn’t until the middle of that week that Musler called Urquhart back and told him that what he had really sold Xbox on was acquiring the entirety of Obsidian, the studio he had been at the head of since 2003.
That's how the industry works. Publishers know about games far in advance. Many, many years in advance. A decision to acquire is as much a decision to invest in and potentially fund everything they're currently doing.
Sony went shopping for Deathloop and Ghostwire: Tokyo, and likely also Hi-Fi Rush, Starfield, Redfall, and Elder Scrolls 6 also. Sony went shopping for Final Fantasy 16 and Forspoken. They went shopping for Kotor: Remake. These publishers learn things well before the rest of us do. What the two companies do is no different. Microsoft just has a lot more money to spend for bigger IP and more studios in one go than Sony does, but outside of that there isn't a god damn bit of difference.
Content could have started development in 1980...if the content ends up in you eco system exclusively its a net+...the "y'all didnt REALLY develop it" is only effective ammo in console wars, not in reality.
That's really all it is. Do they really think paying to keep games off a platform for up to two years or more without at least buying the studio and IP the way Sony does many times is better than what Microsoft does by going for full ownership? Microsoft is doing it right, and some people don't like it. They won't be able to make their "Xbox has no games" nonsense claims anymore. This year is already off to a pretty bad start where that narrative is concerned.