I read the first page and saw a bunch of people talking up how this doesn't mean anything except more money for MS.
Look...I don't really give a shit how much money these companies are or aren't making. I don't really give a shit how much more a game can make if it's multiplat versus being an exclusive. Fact is, none of that means much for me as the customer, or a gamer. Exclusives may not necessarily be the biggest money makers (often times, not always), but that's
NOT the only purpose they serve.
The benefits with games being exclusive (especially a first-party game) to a single platform, generally, are:
-Less hardware configurations to worry about (at least simultaneously)
-More optimization and specific use of a singular hardware spec
-Full access to platform technical and human resources
-Providing a marquee branding image for a given platform (reinforces a
gaming culture around that platform brand)
-All of which help a lot of them generally have the resources to push
ahead and lead game design in one area or another for their time
All of these things are much more infrequent when talking about games that are non-exclusive, especially 3P ones. Also worth noting that some first-party exclusives tend to exist simply as a means to add value to a platform's catalogue or cover gaps in terms of genres missing on the platform due to lack of certain 3P support. So please spare me with the
"but they'll make so much more money!!" takes.
Anyway though, more on-topic, the situation with Indiana Jones is probably like how
SLB1904
said. Deal set up way before the acquisition, didn't involve Microsoft. Zenimax/Bethesda were still operating as a 3P then so naturally they made a deal for the game to be multiplat.
They can always change that with the sequel tho (well, if the game gets a sequel, partly depending on if the film is good).