Support NeoGAF

[nominedomine]

In regards to Starfield we know for sure, it's an Xbox exclusive. Has MS ever released an Xbox exclusive and then ported it to PS later? The only two future Bethesda games I can see being on PS are Indy because of the contract and whatever new MMO Zenimax Online is working on. They've made it clear that Bethesda will be making Xbox exclusives, but Activision is obviously a different story. It'll be interesting to see what Activision/Blizzard games end up as Xbox exclusive and which ones stay multiplatform.

Yes, there have been multiple timed exclusives in the past by both MS and Sony and they don't always give all the details upfront.

 

[Swift_Star]

Yet you keep ignoring the 2 games, which MS is missing, because of the timed exclusives.

It seems you are dodging the topic.

Nobody pays $7 billion for a company because of timed exclusivity lol.
They bought Bethesda because they’re were for sale and because it made business sense for MS.
MS didn’t went “oh Sony is moneyhatting Bethesda games, let’s buy them so they can’t do it”.
This is not how business operate.
You couldn’t convince anyone to make a purchase that way. You have to create a business case for your shareholders to approve the project.
Moneyhatting wouldn’t fly.
So, no, Bethesda wasn’t bought specifically because Sony was making timed exclusive contracts with them. Regardless of what you’re saying.

 

[kingfey]

Nobody pays $7 billion for a company because of timed exclusivity lol.
They bought Bethesda because they’re were for sale and because it made business sense for MS.
MS didn’t went “oh Sony is moneyhatting Bethesda games, let’s buy them so they can’t do it”.
This is not how business operate.
You couldn’t convince anyone to make a purchase that way. You have to create a business case for your shareholders to approve the project.
Moneyhatting wouldn’t fly.
So, no, Bethesda wasn’t bought specifically because Sony was making timed exclusive contracts with them. Regardless of what you’re saying.

Bethesda put itself on sale. MS bought them after that.

If bethesda didn't put them on sale, MS wouldn't have bought them in the first place.

We saw what would have happened, have bethesda not put themselves for sale. Sony literally made 2 of their games timed exclusives to their system.

That is what you ignoring. This was no chance for slip up for them.

Leave bethesda alone and whoever buys them, would accept Sony timed exclusive money.

 

[drganon]

Jez Corden is no better than Jeff Grubb. Just another "rumor " shill who shouldn't be trusted.

 

[Swift_Star]

Bethesda put itself on sale. MS bought them after that.

If bethesda didn't put them on sale, MS wouldn't have bought them in the first place.

We saw what would have happened, have bethesda not put themselves for sale. Sony literally made 2 of their games timed exclusives to their system.

That is what you ignoring. This was no chance for slip up for them.

Leave bethesda alone and whoever buys them, would accept Sony timed exclusive money.

I don’t see your point, all you said is irrelevant. Like I said, the timed exclusivity contracts had no weight on Microsoft’s purchase. Once again: they bought Bethesda because it made business sense for them and because they were on sale. The fact that there were times exclusivity contracts have nothing to do with the purchase. You don’t go and buy a company based on that. I’m gonna leave at that because you’re trying to be right about something you’re not, trying to talk about a subject you understand nothing of, (a behavior you repeatedly do at this forum and has been called out a number of times by a variety of users) and there’s nothing else to discuss here. Feel free to reply to me knowing I’m not reading any further about whatever you say about this topic.
This conversation is over.

 

[THE DUCK]

I don't think you understand what I am saying.

I just reread it, I was thinking you just meant timed, bit I see you meant a contract like the "The Show" where the ip holder demands multiplatform. If that's the case here, then yes, of course ms would have no choice but to make the game multiplatform.

 

[kingfey]

I don’t see your point, all you said is irrelevant. Like I said, the timed exclusivity contracts had no weight on Microsoft’s purchase. Once again: they bought Bethesda because it made business sense for them and because they were on sale. The fact that there were times exclusivity contracts have nothing to do with the purchase. You don’t go and buy a company based on that. I’m gonna leave at that because you’re trying to be right about something you’re not, trying to talk about a subject you understand nothing of, (a behavior you repeatedly do at this forum and has been called out a number of times by a variety of users) and there’s nothing else to discuss here. Feel free to reply to me knowing I’m not reading any further about whatever you say about this topic.
This conversation is over.

It made sense, because they wanted to secure bethesda games. This is what you don't understand.

Why do you go and buy a 3rd party games, which was coming to your business?

A) strengthening their studio's, and owning those ips.
B) not losing to Sony, due to timed exclusivity.

When you buy something, you weight all the option. And losing starfield for timed exclusivity would harm MS, as that would lose them tons of users and revenue.

 

[Hezekiah]

I'm looking forward to being able to choose whether to buy this for PC or PS5 depending on the type of game it is, e.g. more platforming or shooting.

I also wonder if they will implement specific DualSense features.

 

[kingfey]

I'm looking forward to being able to choose whether to buy this for PC or PS5 depending on the type of game it is, e.g. more platforming or shooting.

I also wonder if they will implement specific DualSense features.

I think you will need to wait for clarification first.
As of now, it's just a rumor, and not official.

But if I have to guess, PC would be the best option. Since bethesda games support modding. And you will get alot of content from the modding community.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I dont know why this would be exclusive, unless the contract w/ Disney just didn't stipulate that.. but it would be odd for Disney to not specify consoles to release on I'd think.

 

[kingfey]

I dont know why this would be exclusive, unless the contract w/ Disney just didn't stipulate that.. but it would be odd for Disney to not specify consoles to release on I'd think.

Does Disney want this multiplatform?

Disney isn't the type of company that would just mandate developers to make their games multiplatform. Considering the IPs they have, they dont care what platform it ends with. As long as there are games for their IPs.

Disney at this point owns tons of IPs. All they want is games for these IPs. They don't care if it's exclusive or not

Wolverine is prime example.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

idgaf about what platform a game goes to, being included on game pass day 1 is enough for me

yea, i wouldnt care id ps fans got avowed, starfield etc. it being on gamepass is a plus and if the game is great i want more to experience it.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Does Disney want this multiplatform?

Disney isn't the type of company that would just mandate developers to make their games multiplatform. Considering the IPs they have, they dont care what platform it ends with. As long as there are games for their IPs.

Disney at this point owns tons of IPs. All they want is games for these IPs. They don't care if it's exclusive or not

Wolverine is prime example.

If Disney wanted to do an exclusive, they'd have reached out to Microsoft or Sony. Not Bethesda.

 

[kingfey]

If Disney wanted to do an exclusive, they'd have reached out to Microsoft or Sony. Not Bethesda.

If someone bought bethesda, that could change.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Does Disney want this multiplatform?

Disney isn't the type of company that would just mandate developers to make their games multiplatform. Considering the IPs they have, they dont care what platform it ends with. As long as there are games for their IPs.

Disney at this point owns tons of IPs. All they want is games for these IPs. They don't care if it's exclusive or not

Wolverine is prime example.

Just complete and utter nonsense. Disney doing exclusives doesn't mean they don't give a shit when signing a contract to make a game. Just.... WTF? lol

"Yeah guys make us a game, we don't care where you release it, thanks - Disney"

 

[kingfey]

Just complete and utter nonsense. Disney doing exclusives doesn't mean they don't give a shit when signing a contract to make a game. Just.... WTF? lol

"Yeah guys make us a game, we don't care where you release it, thanks - Disney"

You are taking disney for granted. I wouldnt be surprised if they went with that.
After that marvels game, I would think they would be very selective with their ips, and who does them.

 

[Topher]

You are taking disney for granted. I wouldnt be surprised if they went with that.
After that marvels game, I would think they would be very selective with their ips, and who does them.

Sure......so they went with a developer who has a pedigree for making great multiplat games. Very likely that is still what Disney is expecting.

 

[Heisenberg007]

If someone bought bethesda, that could change.

Yes, it could (depending if MS negotiated after the acquisition or not).

But to answer your question "Does Disney want this multi-platform?", yes. That's exactly what they wanted, and that's why they went to an independent multi-platform publisher.

Edit: Also, this game is likely funded directly by Disney. Microsoft has very little to do with this arrangement. I think the best they could do is try to convince Disney to launch the game on Gamepass day one, but even that decision ultimately rests with Disney.

And I wouldn't bank on that possibility too much because Disney is supposed to get royalty fees for each copy sold. If they believe in this game's ability to sell copies at launch, they'd prefer not to launch it on any subscription service. Just my two cents.

 

[kingfey]

Sure......so they went with a developer who has a pedigree for making great multiplat games. Very likely that is still what Disney is expecting.

nah, they want with a dev, who have experience with these type of games, considering they produced Wolfenstein series.

Plus, if that studio were to not be bought by certain company, another company would have requested a timed exclusive for that game.

So yes, they dont care if its multiplatform or not. As long as the devs they assigned to, make the game.

 

[adamsapple]

Yeah, you know I won't be surprised if the new Indy is a first person game, not a third person.

Machine Games have Nazi-era architecture and enemy/weapon design down to a T already.

 

[IntentionalPun]

You are taking disney for granted. I wouldnt be surprised if they went with that.
After that marvels game, I would think they would be very selective with their ips, and who does them.

Do you think Disney has no clue Sony is making those games exclusive?

I mean come on.. Disney understands videogames they've bene in the business for decades.. and they understand what their IP is worth. Exclusives are special deals that Disney gets something out of... otherwise they aren't going to just let someone use their IP in any exclusive manner. It'd be part of the contract.

And MS and Sony have totally different amounts of leverage when talking to companies as well. Sony has the upper hand by about.. I dunno.. 2.5x lol

 

[kingfey]

Yeah, you know I won't be surprised if the new Indy is a first person game, not a third person.

Machine Games have Nazi-era architecture and enemy/weapon design down to a T already.

I dont like that for indy game. I hate first person mode for that type of game. and if its first person, then i wont bother playing it. Its not worth it for me.

 

[Topher]

nah, they want with a dev, who have experience with these type of games, considering they produced Wolfenstein series.

Plus, if that studio were to not be bought by certain company, another company would have requested a timed exclusive for that game.

So yes, they dont care if its multiplatform or not. As long as the devs they assigned to, make the game.

Disney cares about getting the most money for their game. So either Microsoft paid enough money for the game to be console exclusive or the game is going to be multiplat. Either case involves Disney "caring" about what platforms the game will be on.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Yes, it could (depending if MS negotiated after the acquisition or not).

But to answer your question "Does Disney want this multi-platform?", yes. That's exactly what they wanted, and that's why they went to an independent multi-platform publisher.

Edit: Also, this game is likely funded directly by Disney. Microsoft has very little to do with this arrangement. I think the best they could do is try to convince Disney to launch the game on Gamepass day one, but even that decision ultimately rests with Disney.

And I wouldn't bank on that possibility too much because Disney is supposed to get royalty fees for each copy sold. If they believe in this game's ability to sell copies at launch, they'd prefer not to launch it on any subscription service. Just my two cents.

I think people are overestimating what Microsoft can do with IPs that they don’t own. If they owned it I would definitely say they could make it exclusive without input from anywhere else. But Disney owns the IP so ultimately it falls on the agreement that they have with it.

 

[kingfey]

Do you think Disney has no clue Sony is making those games exclusive?

I mean come on.. Disney understands videogames they've bene in the business for decades.. and they understand what their IP is worth. Exclusives are special deals that Disney gets something out of... otherwise they aren't going to just let someone use their IP in any exclusive manner. It'd be part of the contract.

If so, why make Spiderman and wolverine locked in to 1 system? Why not PS and PC?
Is that OK only for a certain console? I dont understand you guys.

I know MS said no to marvel, but why is the PC users have to suffer from this?

So yeah, DIsney doesnt give a crap about multiplatform or not. If they cared, spiderman and wolverine would have been on pc.

 

[kingfey]

Disney cares about getting the most money for their game. So either Microsoft paid enough money for the game to be console exclusive or the game is going to be multiplat. Either case involves Disney "caring" about what platforms the game will be on.

Its all about money, or else, PC wouldnt have missed on spiderman, and now with wolverine.

 

[IntentionalPun]

If so, why make Spiderman and wolverine locked in to 1 system? Why not PS and PC?
Is that OK only for a certain console? I dont understand you guys.

I know MS said no to marvel, but why is the PC users have to suffer from this?

So yeah, DIsney doesnt give a crap about multiplatform or not. If they cared, spiderman and wolverine would have been on pc.

Because that's the deal Sony made... with Disney.

I never said Disney doesn't do exclusives.. they dont ACCIDENTALLY do them.

Machine games was not owned by MS when they made the Indie deal, so the idea that it was some Xbox exclusive from the start doesn't make any sense.. nor does it make sense that MS can just buy the company and make it exclusive as the consoles the game was being released on would be part of the contract in the first place.

Is it possible it's an exclusive? Sure.. but then why go through a 3rd party?

 

[MasterCornholio]

Because that's the deal Sony made... with Disney.

I never said Disney doesn't do exclusives.. they dont ACCIDENTALLY do them.

Machine games was not owned by MS when they made the Indie deal, so the idea that it was some Xbox exclusive from the start doesn't make any sense.. nor does it make sense that MS can just buy the company and make it exclusive as the consoles the game was being released on would be part of the contract in the first place.

Is it possible it's an exclusive? Sure.. but then why go through a 3rd party?

That’s my whole issue with this. Could it have started as a multiplatform title? Very likely since Machine Games wasn’t owned by Microsoft and were producing games on multiple platforms.

Now can it’s status change to become an exclusive? Yea it can however I don’t see Microsoft being able to this without Disneys consent.

This is all assuming the game started off as a multiplatform title BTW. If it was an Xbox exclusive at the beginning then that’s a different story.

 

[IntentionalPun]

That’s my whole issue with this. Could it have started as a multiplatform title? Very likely since Machine Games wasn’t owned by Microsoft and were producing games on multiple platforms.

Now can it’s status change to become an exclusive? Yea it can however I don’t see Microsoft being able to this without Disneys consent.

This is all assuming the game started off as a multiplatform title BTW. If it was an Xbox exclusive at the beginning then that’s a different story.

Yeah exactly; MS can re-negotiate of course.. but I dont see how this makes sense as starting as an Xbox exclusive with the way the game came to light.

Nor does it make sense MS could just choose to do so, or that the contract never stipulated platforms. That is just... not remotely likely.

 

[kingfey]

Because that's the deal Sony made... with Disney.

I never said Disney doesn't do exclusives.. they dont ACCIDENTALLY do them.

Machine games was not owned by MS when they made the Indie deal, so the idea that it was some Xbox exclusive from the start doesn't make any sense.. nor does it make sense that MS can just buy the company and make it exclusive as the consoles the game was being released on would be part of the contract in the first place.

Is it possible it's an exclusive? Sure.. but then why go through a 3rd party?

Disney care more about money. They dont care if its multiplatform or not. Hell they wont care, if you do timed exclusive.

As long as someone pays them money, they would look the other way.

 

[Topher]

Disney care more about money. They dont care if its multiplatform or not. Hell they wont care, if you do timed exclusive.

As long as someone pays them money, they would look the other way.

Getting paid for exclusivity means they care about whether the game is multiplat or not.

Its all about money, or else, PC wouldnt have missed on spiderman, and now with wolverine.

Sony and Disney have a much more complicated relationship.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Yeah exactly; MS can re-negotiate of course.. but I dont see how this makes sense as starting as an Xbox exclusive with the way the game came to light.

Nor does it make sense MS could just choose to do so, or that the contract never stipulated platforms. That is just... not remotely likely.

I know Microsoft is a very powerful corporation but they don’t own the IP. If Disney wanted it on multiple platforms and Microsoft just decides to axe the PS5 version they could get into a lot of legal trouble. If it’s a serious breach in contract I’m sure Disney could just hand over the IP to someone else.

I honestly don’t believe this will happen though. If it does become exclusive it’s because it’s either compliant with the previous agreement or Microsoft talked to Disney about it and they were fine with it.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Its all about money, or else, PC wouldnt have missed on spiderman, and now with wolverine.

The game turning out good could also be a factor. After all it’s easier to sell a good game then a bad one.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Disney care more about money. They dont care if its multiplatform or not. Hell they wont care, if you do timed exclusive.

As long as someone pays them money, they would look the other way.

Nonsense; IP usage is also about exposure. So if someone wants to use a license exclusivity, there is an extra cost.

 

[Edgelord79]

It's interesting to witness how most games from both Bethesda and Activision in the future will be everywhere anyway…

You used a definitive statement to express an opinion you know nothing about.

You are just surmising at this point as is everyone else. You are not an authoritative source.

You might be right or you might be wrong.

 

[kingfey]

The game turning out good could also be a factor. After all it’s easier to sell a good game then a bad one.

Nonsense; IP usage is also about exposure. So if someone wants to use a license exclusivity, there is an extra cost.

Money, money, money.
It doesnt matter if the IP has enough exposure, or if its good, as long as they have they money.

Marvels game from square enix was a flop, despite being on all 3. Guardians didnt make enough money, due to poor marketing, despite being on all 3 platforms.

Disney at this point, want their guarantee money. You give them that, and they would make you have the exclusive rights.

Getting paid for exclusivity means they care about whether the game is multiplat or not.

Then they should make wolverine multiplatform then. I mean, they care about the game being multiplatform right?
But that is not what happened. Sony gave them enough money, and commercial hit for spiderman. Then, Miles was a hit too. Disney is happy with that.

Sony and Disney have a much more complicated relationship.

Its spiderman for movies. Disney wants the Spiderman movies, and series for their universe. Getting that means a nice list of movies for their marvel universe.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Money, money, money.
It doesnt matter if the IP has enough exposure, or if its good, as long as they have they money.

Marvels game from square enix was a flop, despite being on all 3. Guardians didnt make enough money, due to poor marketing, despite being on all 3 platforms.

Disney at this point, want their guarantee money. You give them that, and they would make you have the exclusive rights.


Then they should make wolverine multiplatform then. I mean, they care about the game being multiplatform right?
But that is not what happened. Sony gave them enough money, and commercial hit for spiderman. Then, Miles was a hit too. Disney is happy with that.


Its spiderman for movies. Disney wants the Spiderman movies, and series for their universe. Getting that means a nice list of movies for their marvel universe.

Not exactly because Spider-Man didn’t happen.

 

[Topher]

Then they should make wolverine multiplatform then. I mean, they care about the game being multiplatform right?
But that is not what happened. Sony gave them enough money, and commercial hit for spiderman. Then, Miles was a hit too. Disney is happy with that.

Its spiderman for movies. Disney wants the Spiderman movies, and series for their universe. Getting that means a nice list of movies for their marvel universe.

And so if the negotiations between Disney and Sony led to broader deals that involved gaming then that would explain a lot about why Sony is getting favoritism from Disney as far as exclusives.

Bethesda doesn't have that kind of relationship to bargain for exclusivity. It is simply a matter of how much cash are they willing to part with to make Indiana Jones exclusive or agree to make the game multiplat.

Regardless, those are two completely different scenarios.

 

[kingfey]

Not exactly because Spider-Man didn’t happen.

Because that game was commercial hit. Disney is satisfied with that. They wont make Sony make the game a multiplatform, as that would risk insomniac not making the game. Disney doesnt want that.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Because that game was commercial hit. Disney is satisfied with that. They wont make Sony make the game a multiplatform, as that would risk insomniac not making the game. Disney doesnt want that.

So you’re starting to understand that Disney has to say yes to this.

 

[Leyasu]

Yes, it could (depending if MS negotiated after the acquisition or not).

But to answer your question "Does Disney want this multi-platform?", yes. That's exactly what they wanted, and that's why they went to an independent multi-platform publisher.

Edit: Also, this game is likely funded directly by Disney. Microsoft has very little to do with this arrangement. I think the best they could do is try to convince Disney to launch the game on Gamepass day one, but even that decision ultimately rests with Disney.

And I wouldn't bank on that possibility too much because Disney is supposed to get royalty fees for each copy sold. If they believe in this game's ability to sell copies at launch, they'd prefer not to launch it on any subscription service. Just my two cents.

If Disney is indeed funding this, then I would imagine that they wouldn't say no to a nice guaranteed chunk of the dev costs back from Microsoft for putting it on Gamepass day one. It wouldn't be going on there for free.

 

[kingfey]

And so if the negotiations between Disney and Sony led to broader deals that involved gaming then that would explain a lot about why Sony is getting favoritism from Disney as far as exclusives.

You dont need outside deals. Spiderman commercial success let them get those rights.

Bethesda doesn't have that kind of relationship to bargain for exclusivity. It is simply a matter of how much cash are they willing to part with to make Indiana Jones exclusive or agree to make the game multiplat.

Bethesda being owned by MS is changing this. Plus if MS didnt buy them, Sony would have swooped in for timed exclusive, thus nullifying the multiplat option for the other console.

Which brings in to this point. What does Disney really want? Do they want a multiplatform game for all consoles and pc, or do they want a commercial game, which allows them to get more money?

 

[kingfey]

So you’re starting to understand that Disney has to say yes to this.

If you bring them enough money, the answer would be yes. If not, then they wont allow for exclusives.

Its all about money, or proving yourself, that you are capable of making a commercial game like insomniac sony.

Disney already suffered loses from guardians and the marvel game.

 

[MasterCornholio]

If you bring them enough money, the answer would be yes. If not, then they wont allow for exclusives.

Its all about money, or proving yourself, that you are capable of making a commercial game like insomniac sony.

Disney already suffered loses from guardians and the marvel game.

Your assuming that Microsoft is willing to pay that amount. Depends on what Disney wants from them.

 

[kingfey]

Your assuming that Microsoft is willing to pay that amount. Depends on what Disney wants from them.

MS payed $67b for activision/blizzard. Securing this game wont hurt them a bit.

Remember they are all in on gamepass. They would pay for it, if they want to.

 

[Topher]

Which brings in to this point. What does Disney really want? Do they want a multiplatform game for all consoles and pc, or do they want a commercial game, which allows them to get more money?

What do you mean by "commercial game"? How is a multiplat not a "commercial game"?

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

You used a definitive statement to express an opinion you know nothing about.

You are just surmising at this point as is everyone else. You are not an authoritative source.

You might be right or you might be wrong.

Well yes I'm a random user in a message board. Am I supposed to write "imo" after every post? Lmao

 

[Negotiator101]

I imagine the deal with Disney was signed before the acquisition and it was for a multiplatform release, so Microsoft can't back out from it now.

It should be multiplatform IMO it's an established and well liked IP it should have as big an audience as possible, but don't be under any illusion, Microsoft are in full control of what is and isn't a Xbox console exclusive.

 

[Negotiator101]

Well yes I'm a random user in a message board. Am I supposed to write "imo" after every post? Lmao

Yes, unless it's a factual statement

 

[Topher]

It should be multiplatform IMO it's an established and well liked IP it should have as big an audience as possible, but don't be under any illusion, Microsoft are in full control of what is and isn't a Xbox console exclusive.

That last part isn't quite right. Spider-man is not an Xbox console exclusive and Microsoft has no control over that. I think what you mean is Microsoft ultimately has the ability to decide if a game is on Xbox or not. If they don't like that a game won't be Xbox exclusive then they can say it won't be on Xbox at all. But I can't think of a situation where that would happen. Most games are multiplat.

Edit: Perhaps you meant MS first party games? That would be true, but in this case Disney also has full control over Indiana Jones.