-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jez Corden suggests 'Indiana Jones' wont be exclusive. Contested by Nick, admits old info 'could be wrong'
- Thread starter Maxwell Jacob Friedman
- Start date
- Rumor
Thirty7ven
Banned
Makes sense, they didn’t license the IP to MS.
EverydayBeast
ChatGPT 0.1
The bethesda deal was about exclusives and there aren’t any.
spookyfish
Member
I would think Bethesda got the license at the time they were multiplatform, with the expectation Sony players would have it too. Disney isn’t going to cut off half of the market because Microsoft bought the developer.
The Eradicator
Member
Did we not have literally 1000 threads about this EXACT topic when MS purchased Bethesda? There's no "warrior glasses" at this point. If this game isn't exclusive, it's obviously a matter of pre-existing contracts or it is the IP owner's decision (like MLB the show).
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
Yeah they don't want that ...Except for all the times they do want that like stalker, medium, ascent etc...But there will be an excuse to why Xbox did it, because they had to, Sony forced them but when it is the opposite it is always because sony is the bad guy...Poor little trillion dollar company.
The reality is that they do it and will keep doing it when it serves them, stop being so naive this is a business and what matters is money.
Zeroing
Banned
I agree, I would like to testify that recently it came to light that some of the games people were saying were money hats by Sony actually wasn’t! So that proves most people know nothing! It’s just stupid lists of things to use on argument!
I also would like to testify that I never saw any bruises on Microsoft and I do not know who pooped on the bed!
*waiting for cross examination
Lol
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
Objection "Hearsay!"
Zeroing
Banned
I saw it! Microsoft wasn’t using Amica cream!
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
Yeah all in all it is probably what happenned, that or disney pushing for the game to be multiplat.Which mean that speshal nick was once again wrong but it is not a surprise now, leakers have bet a let down this gen.
Vognerful
Member
And street fighter 6, and final fantasy 16, and I think harry potter.
But no, I can see any evidence
kingfey
Banned
Smaller games doesn't equal to big games. Only stalker 2 is different, and marvel deal.
But as you said, these are billion/trillion dollar companies. They do whatever they want with their money.
Just like how Ps spends their money with timed exclusives, MS spends their money on publishers/studios.
Everyone is for themselves in the business world, and we have no business in what they do.
Vognerful
Member
Since we are going with another subject, all the examples you guys mentioned came or will come to playstation on a later date.
Here are the games that Sony moneyhatted in the recent years that we don't know if they will come to Xbox, or even PC.
Persona 5, and strikers
Final fantasy 7 remake
Street fighter 5
Final fantasy 16
So yes, the comparison is not the same.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
Great now count the games MS moneyhatted by buying the studios/publisher...Besides are you sure all those where moneyhatted or is it a situation like MGS 4? because I am not sure about personas.But yeah keep doing whatabboutism about a different subject.
Just remember that on that list capcom confirmed that sony funded the game, so left is 2 final fantasy games....The franchise known for selling gangbusters on Xbox like one in five copies at best (for example for ffXV)...
Zeroing
Banned
How do we know they moneyhat it? Even second party games, that Sony funded like nioh, death stranding etc came to pc…
btw they are all Japanese games.. from a time where Xbox one wasn’t shaking the gaming market… maybe there’s your answer.
We do not know for a fact if it is or not.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
Shhh his speculations and whataboutism holds more truth than facts....To be fair I do think sony moneyhatted the final fantasy games.
Vognerful
Member
People do like to use this whataboutism, but do you prefer Microsoft to use the 70 or 80 billion USD to money hat every single 3rd part game exist there and leave Sony gamers with a new game every 6 to 9 months?
With regards to MGS4, why are using an example from PS3 days where the reason was very clear? It is very costly to build the same game twice for 2 consoles. PS4 and Xbox are basically the same machine. Did MGS5 sell on Xbox too?
And wow, you started by saying "what about Xbox money hatting games?" And you have the nerve of accusing me of it when I just responded to your claim?
ضربني وبكى. سبقني واشتكى.
With regards to SF5, I understand from you then there should be no reason for SF5 not to release on Xbox, correct? And if it did not, that what be dick move.
For final fantasy, square is still releasing more niche games like stranger in paradise and atlus is going to release that that hacker something game. Besides, wouldn't they have skipped releasing ff15 on Xbox knowing the sales figures from the Xbox 360.
Do remember we had established earlier that prior to release of ff7remake, final fantasy existed on Xbox machines way longer that it was a Sony exclusive. In fact Xbox is the only place where you can play all parts locally on the machine (1 to 6 through emulation, 7 to 15 locally (excluding 14)).
Vognerful
Member
Atlus is going to release that hacker game on Xbox. Square released stranger in paradise on Xbox.
They have no problem porting games to Xbox.
Konami put MGS5 on Xbox too.
Last edited:
nominedomine
Banned
Since you have inside info would you please tell Jimbo to moneyhat Persona 4 Golden too? Atlus forgot to release it on PS4.
Last edited:
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
The only response to whataboutism is whataboutism .I used MGS as an example because a month ago it was considered moneyhatted by sony until surprise it was indeed not just like some examp)les you used, congrats on not understanding the point.
You did not respond to my points which was simply
kingfey
said that Xbox didn't do timed exclusive and I showed him they do, you mention moneyhatting exclusive which has nothing to do, it is whataboutism.SF5 was funded by sony at a time when capcom was in trouble and willing to take money where they could, so not relevant again.Atlus releasing other games on xbox doesn't mean that they would've released persona on Xbox, by that logic SMT V is moneyhatted too (and that's not what I think).
How would square know the ratio of FFXV sales before publishing it on Xbox? using a psychic ?Now we know it doesn't sell well on Xbox.
And using emulation as a way to justify presence of a serie on a console?You realy had nothing better ?It is like saying god of war's is a PC game because you can play all god of war through emulation, that's how stupid this argument is.
Ask anybody that is informed about games which brand/constructor Final fantasy has a great history with, which is it attached to and some will say Nintendo but the vast majority will say Sony.Try to take a step back from your bias and tell me do you honestly believe that FF is attached to Xbox ?If you still answer I can't do anything for you, the revisionnism caused by your bias is in too deep.
So whataboutism, irrelevant points and either bias or sheer lack of culture are all that you posted, come up with good arguments to my post which I feel like I need to remember you since you answer to something else: Ms does timed exclusives no matter what kingfey said...Now reread your response and tell me what part has any relevance about it ?
Edit: Did you feel so much the need to defend MS that you had to talk about something else?Because I have no problem saying Sony probably moneyhatted the FF games yet it seems a peinful thought to admit that MS does timed exclusives.
Last edited:
Vognerful
Member
The reason for mgs 4 not releasing on Xbox actually support my point as MGS5 did release and there is no difference between PS4 and Xbox archeticture.for final fantasy15 did you just forget that square released 3 titles on Xbox 360 and could have used the sales figures from it?The only response to whataboutism is whataboutism .I used MGS as an example because a month ago it was considered moneyhatted by sony until surprise it was indeed not just like some examp)les you used, congrats on not understanding the point.
You did not respond to my points which was simply
SF5 was funded by sony at a time when capcom was in trouble and willing to take money where they could, so not relevant again.Atlus releasing other games on xbox doesn't mean that they would've released persona on Xbox, by that logic SMT V is moneyhatted too (and that's not what I think).
How would square know the ratio of FFXV sales before publishing it on Xbox? using a psychic ?Now we know it doesn't sell well on Xbox.
And using emulation as a way to justify presence of a serie on a console?You realy had nothing better ?It is like saying god of war's is a PC game because you can play all god of war through emulation, that's how stupid this argument is.
Ask anybody that is informed about games which brand/constructor Final fantasy has a great history with, which is it attached to and some will say Nintendo but the vast majority will say Sony.Try to take a step back from your bias and tell me do you honestly believe that FF is attached to Xbox ?If you still answer I can't do anything for you, the revisionnism caused by your bias is in too deep.
So whataboutism, irrelevant points and either bias or sheer lack of culture are all that you posted, come up with good arguments to my post which I feel like I need to remember you since you answer to something else: Ms does timed exclusives no matter what kingfey said...Now reread your response and tell me what part has any relevance about it ?
Edit: Did you feel so much the need to defend MS that you had to talk about something else?Because I have no problem saying Sony probably moneyhatted the FF games yet it seems a peinful thought to admit that MS does timed exclusives.
Edit:
I did not first bother reading all the gibberish but I noticed that you misunderstood two sentences I said about final fantasy.
"And using emulation as a way to justify presence of a serie on a console?You realy had nothing better ?It is like saying god of war's is a PC game because you can play all god of war through emulation, that's how stupid this argument is."
You linked directly my two statements about final fantasy history. I don't have to use the emulated games to prove the heritage of Xbox, that was an addition.
If you don't know, from the date final fantasy 11 and 13 released on Xbox , till 14 was released as exclusive on PS4, final fantasy was a multiplatform for a longer amount of time than it was a playstation exclusive. You can look it up.
Maybe you are a fossil like me who grew up with playstation 1, but if your fist entry to video games was PS3/Xbox 360, then final fantasy would be a multiplatform in your mind. No question about. Heck, even all historic titles were released on PC by then. If any, PC should be the home of final fantasy, not playstation, Xbox or nintendo.
Last edited:
Vognerful
Member
Nah, he just didn't care about running old games. He should have taken a page of Phil playbook.
On a serious note, does the ps store have the original persona 2?
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
And I am sure that they already knew when they started to dev the games how many X1 would sell and the player base they'd lose...Looking at the numbers FF sold half of what the ps3 sold, which is a number a company can get behind (gaining 50% more revenue), but since FFXV sold around 20% of what ps4 did and considering the dev costs I am not sure that it was a smart choice.That would again justify a lack of other FF published on Xbox except if MS throw money at it...But why would they it doesn't sell well...Again you failed to adress all the points I mentionned and felt the urge to express that you did not understand sales/production cost and profitability.I feel like the more you talk the less credibility you have, maybe it would be better for you to just stop instead of digging the hole you are burrying yourself into.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
The only legit justification is when the game wouldn't have been made otherwise like Bayonetta 2/3 and SF5.
Topher
Identifies as young
Good point.
Vognerful
Member
Profit=revenue-cost
Cost of developing games for both consoles at PS3/360 is way higher than PS4/Xbox one, especially if you were already making a PC port. If
Thus, with lesser revenue, you can still turn in higher profit if your cost for reduced significantly. So remember that square released many dlc for the game that would increase the revenue as well.
The other points is from you not understanding what I said earlier. I edited my previous comment to make clear.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
Yet I don't think that less than half revenue from the previous gen was enough.And the Dlc that only cater to 20% of sales meaning even less attach rate.And again all that has nothing to do with what I said so why talk about it?Was it a need so visceral to move the goalpost to something you thought you could defend better (yet failed).So answer what was my post before you derailed, does MS still do timed exclusive?
Because it is always easy to get lost when someone moves the goalpost to defend his favorite brand but you still haven't answered to what was the first post you replied to from me here .The rest is just you moving goalpost using a strawman (badly though).
Edit: I saw your edit and it does not make any sense....It's like saying if you ignored the majority of entries of FF then it has Xbox history because it is multiplat....So multiplat to you == Xbox that's a great bias showing there.Just stop it , you may not understand it but youhad to ignored most of the franchise and based yourself on a few entries that barely sold to justify how it is attached to Xbox, you have nothing, your strawman is stronger than you and your points are irelevant.Stop the reisionnism an maybe for once admit you were wrong and move on...Nobody here except the most ardent fanboy would argue that FF history is with Xbox....I can understand how point can be made for sony and nintendo but not Xbox.
Last edited:
That's right, but i would still get rid of that shit and i'm saying that although i really profit from it with "free" pc game pass games if Microsoft does it. I still believe it's overall a waste of money, because who buys a console for a stupid timed game? And even if some would, right now you just can't get a PS5 or Series X. I think they should rather use that money to do something actually useful for their customers.
nominedomine
Banned
I'm pretty sure the Persona series started with Persona 3.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
You probably mixed the 2 discussions, I was talking with
Topher
about full moneyhat as in not coming to other consoles, where the only valid justification is funding aka the game not possible without constructor funding.As for timed exclusive of course I never understood the appeal either but it doesn't change the fact that both Sony and MS are guilty of it.I think i got that and what i wanted to say is that i would happily lose some personal advantages and those theorotic "only possible via timed exclusivity" games in the future if they all get rid of that timed crap for good.You probably mixed the 2 discussions, I was talking with
Last edited:
Vognerful
Member
Ops, I actually meant to ask about PS4, the ps2 title. My bad.
Topher
Identifies as young
Persona started with Revelations: Persona on PS1
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
Once again we weren't talking about timed exclusivity, but I would also like to get rid of timed exclusivity.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
It also has a deep history with Xbox since you can play them on emulators .../S
My bad, now i got it. You meant full exclusives.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
TheGodfather07
Member
Lol that's your evidence? Go and look up the definition of evidence and than get back to me. If you got none then stfu and say so. Did sony try to get exclusivity for elder scrolls VI aswell. How about the next doom? Wolfenstein? Why stop at starfield? Do you get how stupid what you said is now? Speculation isn't evidence. Either give me actual evidence or admit you don't know what the fuck your talking about.
Last edited:
00Magnum Gaming
Member
What? Its Wolfenstein! Its in a alternate universe. No one is going over the top. They depict Hitlers tendencies accurately.
So once again....
Instead of MS battling Sony for timed exclusives...that more than likely costs millions....
MS buys publishers....that costs....billions.
Makes perfect sense.
Thank you.
Whats amazing, is that alot us, me included.....forgot all about the timed exclusive deals MS had this gen.
What would make more sense to me is MS sees that timed exclusives doesnt move the needle for Xbox as much as they want, so they go to the next step, full exclusives.
Or buying publishers is better business for them in the long run vs battling for timed exclusives.
Imagining Phli and his boss having screaming matches about Sony getting timed exclusives is hilarious, lol.
Last edited:
Topher
Identifies as young
Now he is waffling again. In the podcast he said he "pretty much knew" the game was going to be multiplat.
El Pistolero
Banned
This is a 3rd person action game, right?
Topher
Identifies as young
I would think so, but they haven't said what kind of game it is.
Makes the most sense to me I think whips are kind of hard to use in first person, especially when used for climbing and chasms.