Support NeoGAF

[Fess]

The value of being able to produce content for multiple platforms multiplies out the value of any self-owned IP, which in the case of Insomniac is nothing, and in the case of Zenimax is a huge amount.

Do you believe the value of a publisher or studio is the same depending on whether buying them grants the rights to all their successful IP or not? Seriously, why do you think everyone passed on WB games?

I'm just saying, there is really nothing new going on here, we've seen this happen many times. There is just more money and more studios involved this time.

While we don't know Microsoft's plan yet I would assume that the end result will line up well with other studio acquisitions in this industry; Platform holder acquire a dev = exclusive games for their platform.

They've hinted at first and best on Xbox/PC but they could've got that with regular timed exclusive deals for a lot less money so I think it was a comment for online service games or something like that.

The only reason MS would keep all Bethesda's games multiplat is if the endgame plan is to become a multiplat publisher, like EA and Ubi. Could happen I guess but the same goes for Sony so I'm going with X for doubt on that one for now.

 

[Derktron]

People are still saying Microsoft paid 7.5b for timed exclusivity and exclusive dlc.

This place never dissapoints

Well OP rumors are persistent over the fact that yes they bought Bethesda but will continue making games for PlayStation and Nintendo. But I will eat my own words if Bethesda games do become exclusive to PC and Xbox.

 

[NullZ3r0]

So you guys really think they will take a series like Skyrim, one of the best selling games of all time, and decide not to sell to half the market? Skyrim sold 20 million, you think they are going to cut their profit from a sequel in half? Why?

You do realize that now they bought Bethesda they will make money off software sales?

How are not more people saying this? Do you guys think they don't make money off the IPs they own when they sell on PlayStation or Nintendo? Why?

Will it sell Gamepass subscriptions?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Why would Deathloop and Ghostwire be part of such a deal with Sony if they can't commit it to themselves or their partners? Why would Sony specifically want Bethesda to go next gen only?

What do you mean can't commit themselves? They told us what part of their first party games they announced that were and weren't cross gen and only about 3 out of 10 or so were cross gen. I get there's the Jim meme, but they're very much committed to next gen

 

[driqe]

Well OP rumors are persistent over the fact that yes they bought Bethesda but will continue making games for PlayStation and Nintendo. But I will eat my own words if Bethesda games do become exclusive to PC and Xbox.

So what would be their reason for buying Bethesda then? If they wanted gamepass deals or timed exclusivity they could get it for a lot less no?

 

[EverydayBeast]

First off they still have to make the games but the deal is great Microsoft wants to be the best hopefully the pride will be there like the og, and early 360 era those were the days of XBOX.

 

[Clear]

The only reason MS would keep all Bethesda's games multiplat is if the endgame plan is to become a multiplat publisher, like EA and Ubi. Could happen I guess but the same goes for Sony so I'm going with X for doubt on that one for now.

No its because they don't need to. Exclusivity periods and/or the advantage of being able to offer big titles day#1 on GamePass is hugely beneficial to Xbox as a platform.

Sure, go full exclusive on select titles when/if its strategically beneficial, but going fully exclusive just shrinks the addressable market for the product and potentially creates additional competition by opening up gaps in the market for others to exploit.

If they aren't going to cater to the 100m+ strong Playstation user-base they just created an open goal for someone else to step in and potentially do it better. Because let's face it, from a third-party perspective why would you go head-to-head with established franchises that are going to eat your lunch, when you can target those who don't have access to them and so are likely more receptive?

The only rationale behind the exclusivity uber-alles approach is fanboyism and e-peen measuring. Its just not smart business.

 

[driqe]

So now exclusivity is not smart...

 

[Derktron]

So what would be their reason for buying Bethesda then? If they wanted gamepass deals or timed exclusivity they could get it for a lot less no?

I'm just going by what people are claiming.

 

[ManaByte]

So now exclusivity is not smart...

Interesting how it only applies to one company, but the other has to put their big games on every system. Especially when people claim the system doesn't have games worth buying the console for, but of course some of those worthless games absolutely have to be made multi-platform instead of exclusive.

 

[BennyBlanco]

So now exclusivity is not smart...

its a coping mechanism. MS tried to double the price of XBL gold to drive people to gamepass. youre out of your mind if you think they won't use this to drive more GP subs. that's all they care about now.

 

[Clear]

So now exclusivity is not smart...

Not when it makes a huge portion of the multi-billion dollar business you just bought instantly redundant it isn't.

Loss leaders are great, but if you make every product a loss leader you are fucked!

 

[BennyBlanco]

Not when it makes a huge portion of the multi-billion dollar business you just bought instantly redundant it isn't.

Loss leaders are great, but if you make every product a loss leader you are fucked!

yea youre right. Smash Bros coming to PS4 any day now. They can't afford to leave all that money on the table!

 

[Clear]

yea youre right. Smash Bros coming to PS4 any day now. They can't afford to leave all that money on the table!

Since when has Smash Bros ever been developed for anything other than Nintendo platforms? Hmmm?

Fucking hell, some of you guys are transitioning from laughably dim to offensively stupid. Especially when it flies in the face of what MS own executives have said.

Do you think that the Chief Financial Officer was talking out of the side of his mouth in order to lull Playstation fans into a false sense of security? Get a grip.

 

[driqe]

Wait, let me get this straight, Bethesda games won't be exclusive because they would leave billions on the table right?

Can't that logic be applied to literally every single exclusive though?

These same dudes are the ones arguing that sony games going to pc is a bad thing for Playstation.

 

[LisaMariaMartin]

Fucking hell, some of you guys are transitioning from laughably dim to offensively stupid. Especially when it flies in the face of what MS own executives have said.

Do you think that the Chief Financial Officer was talking out of the side of his mouth in order to lull Playstation fans into a false sense of security? Get a grip.

Thats ironic. Have you even read the interview with the CFO? He is talking about existing franchises and still says that their plans will change. Emphasis on will.

Maybe stop hurling insults around and put on your glasses before you read.

 

[ManaByte]

Since when has Smash Bros ever been developed for anything other than Nintendo platforms? Hmmm?

Fucking hell, some of you guys are transitioning from laughably dim to offensively stupid. Especially when it flies in the face of what MS own executives have said.

Do you think that the Chief Financial Officer was talking out of the side of his mouth in order to lull Playstation fans into a false sense of security? Get a grip.

By that logic Miles Morales will be coming out on XSX soon because Insomniac made Sunset Overdrive for MS.

When Sony buys Square I guess that means that Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy will still be made on the Xbox as well.

 

[FrankWza]

Post something illogical and ill-informed on an enthusiast forum

I think it was the truth in realizing that no matter how you want to slice it they are and always will be hired guns. This came out of desperation. If they're able to develop their own games they wouldn't need to spend 7.5 billion on someone else's history to make it their future.

 

[Clear]

Thats ironic. Have you even read the interview with the CFO? He is talking about existing franchises and still says that their plans will change. Emphasis on will.

Maybe stop hurling insults around and put on your glasses before you read.

Of course plans change, that's business, but if they were going in with the intent to go all-in, why muddy the waters by explicitly suggesting first, or better, or best on Xbox?
Why not, only on Xbox? Hmmm?

Like when Phil Spencer said he doesn't consider Sony their primary competitor, he was just being reawwy reawwy sneaky, hur-hur-hur. (Cos he's huntin' wabbits).

No, no. Of course the only thing that matters is sticking it to Sony fanboys. Turning a profit on a $7.5bn dollar investment is just a trifle... I mean its just like Minecraft, they pay billions for it and made a huge mistake by continuing to support it on Playstation even after they were repeatedly obstructed by Sony in their plans.

Stop insulting my intelligence then I wouldn't have to resort to pointing out how asinine some of these comments are. And honestly, maybe you shouldn't open your post so passive-aggressively if you don't want to treated like a petulant child.

 

[FrankWza]

Of course plans change, that's business, but if they were going in with the intent to go all-in, why muddy the waters by explicitly suggesting first, or better, or best on Xbox?
Why not, only on Xbox? Hmmm?

Like when Phil Spencer said he doesn't consider Sony their primary competitor, he was just being reawwy reawwy sneaky, hur-hur-hur. (Cos he's huntin' wabbits).

No, no. Of course the only thing that matters is sticking it to Sony fanboys. Turning a profit on a $7.5bn dollar investment is just a trifle... I mean its just like Minecraft, they pay billions for it and made a huge mistake by continuing to support it on Playstation even after they were repeatedly obstructed by Sony in their plans.

Stop insulting my intelligence then I wouldn't have to resort to pointing out how asinine some of these comments are. And honestly, maybe you shouldn't open your post so passive-aggressively if you don't want to treated like a petulant child.

There was also FoBoB. Things get said. Some happen and some don't

 

[Reality Czar]

Will it sell Gamepass subscriptions?

Will people not buy Gamepass if it is also for sale on PS5 and Switch?

They would lose all their games. I think not.

 

[Banjo64]

I think it was the truth in realizing that no matter how you want to slice it they are and always will be hired guns. This came out of desperation. If they're able to develop their own games they wouldn't need to spend 7.5 billion on someone else's history to make it their future.

I literally don't give a fuck and no one with a sound mind does.

 

[LisaMariaMartin]

Of course plans change, that's business, but if they were going in with the intent to go all-in, why muddy the waters by explicitly suggesting first, or better, or best on Xbox?
Why not, only on Xbox? Hmmm?

Like when Phil Spencer said he doesn't consider Sony their primary competitor, he was just being reawwy reawwy sneaky, hur-hur-hur. (Cos he's huntin' wabbits).

No, no. Of course the only thing that matters is sticking it to Sony fanboys. Turning a profit on a $7.5bn dollar investment is just a trifle... I mean its just like Minecraft, they pay billions for it and made a huge mistake by continuing to support it on Playstation even after they were repeatedly obstructed by Sony in their plans.

1. Because its obviously not just only xbox. They did the odd switch port here and there but Spencer himself said its not sustainable anymore and that he is annoyed by people asking "is this gonna be on switch?" for every title.

2. Stop taking their PR statements as fact. Sony is quite obviously still their biggest competitor by far. Both MS and Sony make up most of their revenue through store sales on XBL/PSN. And who said anything about "sticking it to Sony fanboys"? Fact is, putting their stuff on PS weakens their own hardware platform. Its short term gains vs long term gains. I don't doubt the financial department of MS went through all possibilites here but exclusives drive subscriptions and console sales. Having part of the CEOs income tied to Game Pass should tell you all you need to know about their intentions.

And I find it strange that you omit the fact that MS clarified that Minecraft wouldn't be locked down to single platform in the inital press release. They didn't do this here, just gave a vague "case by case" answer.

Its odd how aggressive and sure of yourself you are when we both know it could go both ways.

 

[FrankWza]

I literally don't give a fuck and no one with a sound mind does.

No? So why do you care if they're exclusive or not? I think if they announce that they aren't youll trade in your xbox.

 

[Banjo64]

No? So why do you care if they're exclusive or not? I think if they announce that they aren't youll trade in your xbox.

You are a crackpot I'll be happy PlayStation players get to play the games too.

 

[Clear]

There was also FoBoB. Things get said. Some happen and some don't

Let me just stress once again the significance of what happened with MInecraft. How many chances did Sony give them to pull-the-plug? And they didn't because.... wait for it... they really like making money!

If they didn't have GamePass to support, I'd be much more inclined to believe they'd move more quickly to full exclusivity because that would maximize earning potential for their platform even to the detriment of profitability for the former-Zenimax unit.

However they do have it, and the objective is to drive uptake on the notion that people will buy-in for the one game they want, and stick around because they discover more stuff on the service that tickles their fancy. GamePass floats on a raft of product, and the income generated by that raft is a constant factor, independent of the fluctuations in acquisition cost of the titles that make it up.

So, the upshot is that the more valuable the properties they put on the service, the bigger the risk is of failing to cover the development costs. Its what I was saying about having one loss leader being fine, but add too many and you're in a heap of trouble. Bottom line is that they need the income, at least until their subscriber base on GP is very substantially bigger than what it is at present.

My prediction has always been that they will start out with timed-exclusivity or simply day#1 on GP and then watch and see how the market reacts. Long-term, sure, go full platform exclusive, but only at a time when the risk makes fiscal sense. So long as they have ownership, they always have that option. But straight off I just don't see it, especially when they are still bound to their obligations on products already on, or destined for PlayStation.

 

[DavJay]

And after today they can finally state their games won't come to PS. They only said otherwise to get the deal approved.

 

[ManaByte]

They only said otherwise to get the deal approved.

I really don't think the SEC cares about that.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Since when has Smash Bros ever been developed for anything other than Nintendo platforms? Hmmm?

Fucking hell, some of you guys are transitioning from laughably dim to offensively stupid. Especially when it flies in the face of what MS own executives have said.

Do you think that the Chief Financial Officer was talking out of the side of his mouth in order to lull Playstation fans into a false sense of security? Get a grip.

MS has demonstrated through their actions that all they care about is GP subs. Keep coping.

 

[Iced Arcade]

MS can and will probably have a whole gaming event just for Bethesda.


Big green is going to be monsterous

 

[Negotiator101]

That only means their games will be available on Xbox.
MS created a new division called Vault, that is NOT part of the Xbox division, to put Zenimax studios in.

What on earth are you going on about?

 

[ManaByte]

What on earth are you going on about?

 

[Clear]

MS has demonstrated through their actions that all they care about is GP subs. Keep coping.

I couldn't give a toss personally. What I find entertaining is the furious disagreement I get for pointing out simple business logic, backed as it is by statements made by MS execs themselves.

What's especially ridiculous is that I'm making a case with some nuance, its not like my position is that they won't or can't EVER. Just that in the short term it strikes me that they'll allow Zenimax to operate somewhat autonomously because that's the most practical approach. But some of you guys are just way too defensive and dismissive ... which is just stupid considering the scope of the acquisition

 

[Negotiator101]

Well OP rumors are persistent over the fact that yes they bought Bethesda but will continue making games for PlayStation and Nintendo. But I will eat my own words if Bethesda games do become exclusive to PC and Xbox.

Well you best get your knife and fork ready cos you gotta lot of words to eat.

 

[CatLady]

yea youre right. Smash Bros coming to PS4 any day now. They can't afford to leave all that money on the table!

Great point! I can't wait to play Horizon FW on my Series X since I'm sure Sony won't leave that Xbox/Nintendo money on the table. I may even double dip and also get it for my Switch to play hand held on the go since it's the only Sony game I like.

 

[onesvenus]

I couldn't give a toss personally. What I find entertaining is the furious disagreement I get for pointing out simple business logic, backed as it is by statements made by MS execs themselves.

What's especially ridiculous is that I'm making a case with some nuance, its not like my position is that they won't or can't EVER. Just that in the short term it strikes me that they'll allow Zenimax to operate somewhat autonomously because that's the most practical approach. But some of you guys are just way too defensive and dismissive ... which is just stupid considering the scope of the acquisition

Don't you think a deal like "first on xbox and Gamepass" would be much more cheaper than outright buying the whole company?
If that's their short term planning they would be better suited doing game by game deals instead.

 

[Derktron]

Well you best get your knife and fork ready cos you gotta lot of words to eat.

I'm ready for it and you can call me out on it. I give you permission. To call me out on here. When that happens.

 

[CrustyBritches]

It's not only about bolstering Xbox and GP, it's also about protecting GP+xCloud from Google or Amazon. I would expect MS to swoop up more devs/pubs to strengthen their platforms and push their sub+cloud services into a position of market leadership. If MS buys it then Google and Amazon can't.

 

[ManaByte]

It's not only about bolstering Xbox and GP, it's also about protecting GP+xCloud from Google or Amazon. I would expect MS to swoop up more devs/pubs to strengthen their platforms and push their sub+cloud services into a position of market leadership.

Disney bought Fox for $70+ billion. You don't see them producing Fox movies for Netflix.

 

[CrustyBritches]

Disney bought Fox for $70+ billion. You don't see them producing Fox movies for Netflix.

No doubt. I think most of the games will be Xbox+PC exclusive. You don't drop that kind of cash for timed deals.

I was just reminding people that it wasn't a Xbox vs PS thing only, or even primarily. They want to push their cloud in the long term, even Sony is one of their customers. They've stated that they see Amazon and Google as primary competitors. PS support will just be a convenient casualty of cock-blocking Amazon and Google.

 

[Negotiator101]

I'm ready for it and you can call me out on it. I give you permission. To call me out on here. When that happens.

Oh I'll be ready to call you out on it. I'll be calling "Hey Derktron! Get your Sunday best on cos you be eating well tonight".

 

[Derktron]

Oh I'll be ready to call you out on it. I'll be calling "Hey Derktron! Get your Sunday best on cos you be eating well tonight".

I'll be waiting. I want to be proved wrong.

 

[Clear]

Don't you think a deal like "first on xbox and Gamepass" would be much more cheaper than outright buying the whole company?
If that's their short term planning they would be better suited doing game by game deals instead.

Per title would involve pretty extreme expenditure over time, and they'd gain little from it long-term. Its always been the knock I've had against GamePass as a business idea, the costs are likely manageable when the product they are buying in isn't thought by its provider to be that valuable. So the relatively small install-base of Xbox has been a boon in that regard because third-parties can't ask MS to compensate them for more than they'd likely sell on the platform in the first-place. Unfortunately as the platform grows, so do the acquisition costs and with a fixed-price a-la-carte service like GP the revenue per user doesn't increase in line with it.

More than that though there are many benefits to controlling IP's outright as opposed to paying for periods of preferential treatment. As I mentioned earlier there's cross media adaptations, merch rights, the ability to stage IP crossovers, etc.

The obvious example of this being Minecraft. They could have made it platform exclusive, but what they've actually done is to continue to try and grow the franchise by selling it to as many people as possible, whilst simultaneously using the IP in different ways to monetize it and to boost other ventures by association with it.

I see Zenimax being handled similarly. They make these big franchises exclusive and while sales will likely rise somewhat on their platform, overall numbers will go down considerably because you simply are not going to convert everyone immediately. In so doing the IP itself is weakened and devalued.

Its really that simple.

The bottom line is that having something that your competitors are selling for $70, for "free" as part of your service is a great promotional tool. Not having that contrast weakens the pitch because it becomes just another GP exclusive, one among many.

How many breakout hits has GamePass produced thus far? Think about that.

 

[Omni_Manhatten]

When you want to make a profit off of the success of another company you invest into them allowing them to still run as a single entity. You don't take on their expenses into your books. Like when Sony invested in Epic. When you want to control the ability to keep content exclusive to your platform you purchase the company. You take on its expenses and you use that to make your own content more attractive. Like when Sony purchased Insomniac. The intent of Xbox is as clear as any other acquisition in this space. Microsoft will be keeping its games exclusive once the contracts in place play out. Sony will continue to bolster PS+ and it would make no sense for MS to help Sony as a platform when they will be the direct competition to Gamepass soon. Let logic dictate. They need to offer their partners a platform where it's beneficial to put 3rd party games day 1 in best case. At least within a year if possible. PS4 sold over a 100 Mil but rare is a game to sale more than 20 million. So if Gamepass can grow large enough to engage players at a level equal to or above what the last Xbox had, then more opportunities for micro transactions etc exist. Let alone more chance someone will play your game who wouldn't have otherwise. To build that eco system you need subscribers. You don't build other platforms. This is just scratching the surface of what I could go into. In the end, Xbox will keep Bethesda games exclusive. Bethesda just pushing out it's PlayStation portfolio and it's evident in the moves of Microsoft that Gamepass is the focus of this purchase.

 

[sainraja]

There is and there will be so many ways to get into the Xbox ecosystem that the PS fanbase becomes nearly meaningless in the long run.

Xbox + PC + Xcloud(mobile/TV). That's why the games will be exclusive - to grow Gamepass subs. Watch that 18 million sub number rapidly rise when Starfield, the next Elder Scrolls and Fallout are exclusive to the Xbox ecosystem. You'd have to be absulutely blind or deluded to not see where Microsoft are aiming at. There's so much room to grow.

Why would you want the PS platform to become meaningless?

I think it is a GOOD thing that we have a choice between three different platforms. I don't wish for a world where its only one and that only one one being Microsoft.

 

[12Dannu123]

People who think Bethesda games are coming to PS when Phil Spencer himself said that he doesn't need PS to recoup the cost and taking into consideration that a lot of Xbox exec salary is based on the growth of Game Pass, so putting games on PS without a way to subscribe to Game Pass on PS5 is moot. There's also a lot of deluded people who think that Sony will retaliate with an acquisition of a publisher. Sony will need to spend 10B+ on a publisher that is in the stock market and there's a decent chance that any large publisher that Sony tries to acquire (Square Enix) could be outbid by MS, Tencent.

Sony may have an advantage in console sales and 1st parties, but in terms of financial power, they are at a significant disadvantage and financial power is only what matters in acquisitions, not relationships.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I didn't claim it was smart, or good. Just if that's the road they go (I don't think they will) people won't be able to hate them anymore.

That would be like hating puppies, and nobody can hate puppies. They just want to give you all the love they can for very little in return.

You know if Nintendo or Sony were in the same position there is no chance in hell you see them on other platforms (well except maybe Pc in Sony's case.)

They are more like cats, and it's Ok to hate cats.

If a puppy tried biting me in the junk, I might have to smack 'em

People who think Bethesda games are coming to PS when Phil Spencer himself said that he doesn't need PS to recoup the cost and taking into consideration that a lot of Xbox exec salary is based on the growth of Game Pass, so putting games on PS without a way to subscribe to Game Pass on PS5 is moot. There's also a lot of deluded people who think that Sony will retaliate with an acquisition of a publisher. Sony will need to spend 10B+ on a publisher that is in the stock market and there's a decent chance that any large publisher that Sony tries to acquire (Square Enix) could be outbid by MS, Tencent.

Sony may have an advantage in console sales and 1st parties, but in terms of financial power, they are at a significant disadvantage and financial power is only what matters in acquisitions, not relationships.

This should be drilled into people's heads more. I'm pretty sure Sony was one of the other companies likely in earlier bids for Zenimax, but when companies the size of Google, Amazon or Microsoft start to put more pressure on the bids, there's no real conceivable way Sony can keep up without dipping into using their own stocks, and that can bring its own complications (FWIW I believe Microsoft paid as a mix of cash & stocks, but they have a lot more of both to draw from to justify a purchase this big).

I think the effective shuttering of Japan Studio is probably part of Sony's refocusing to push harder on a smaller range of more expansive 1P content because as the years go on, it will get harder and harder to buy timed exclusivity for decent prices, so they have to rely even more on their 1P. Larger budgets and scope per game, but less output, it will be interesting to see how it goes. In time they can probably expand the quantity of 1P content to cover certain genres and gameplay styles the usual 1P games don't.

salt for what?
i'm a pc gamer and happy owner of a game pass.

but would be dishonest to deny that Ms relevance in the market has diminished drammatically thanks to their moronic decisions when marketing the xbone and badly managed first party studios.

I won't pretend that MS didn't lose mindshare and marketshare last gen, because they definitely did. However, it's not worth exaggerating that to the point as if they have no market relevance whatsoever. If that were the case, they would not have bothered with 9th-gen systems whatsoever, and probably would not have pushed forward with Gamepass/Xcloud, nor made these studio purchases.

They've been making a gradual recovery from the mistakes of 2013-2016, and now they've made a massive purchase showing their intent to compete with Sony's 1P output even more seriously, arguably the most serious they've ever been on that front. And apparently, that scares a lot of the same people who were always saying they wanted a more competitive MS (but then you realize that was not what they actually wanted, they just wanted to appear as if it was something they desired).

 

[NullZ3r0]

Will people not buy Gamepass if it is also for sale on PS5 and Switch?

They would lose all their games. I think not.

GamePass is $10/month recurring revenue for MS. They don't care about selling $70 games on other platforms.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I can't wait until Microsoft just comes out and says most if not all games will be exclusive so people who know nothing about business can stop writing long, confident rants about it.

I'm not saying every game will be exclusive, but damn, there could be a bingo card for the talking points that come up time and time again.

Does Xbox need to release Bethesda games on PlayStation?

No.

Would it potentially hurt their image and future plans if they did?

Yes.

You can get yourself in a twist over "leaving money on the table" and "IT'LL REDUCE THEIR EARNING POTENTIAL!!!", but these are things that have been collectively pulled out of asses and that both Microsoft and Bethesda are probably pretty well aware of entering into a multi-billion dollar deal.

Not just that, but the folks who propose Microsoft is "leaving money on the table" by not bringing those games to PlayStation, never argue the inverse, i.e how Sony is leaving money on the table by not bringing their 1P content to the 50-something million XBO owners, or the millions of PC gamers who until last year got very few if any 1P ports from the PlayStation.

I mean, is Sony a charity that operates on "goodwill" from fueling the exclusivity list wars of a small minority of people in the fanbase? Or are they a business that understands the importance of ecosystem-exclusives (meaning console & PC) and therefore know the problems that could come from bringing those games to competing consoles like Xbox and Switch (since the perception of 1P games on those systems is magnitudes different than those games being on PC)?

Because if the answer's the latter, why then do these same people think Microsoft should play oblivious to knowing the value of platform ecosystem-exclusives and therein compromise that by bringing those same games to competing console platforms? The truth is they are 100% aware of this and that should be proof enough of what plans they have for the vast majority of these Zenimax/Bethesda games (the new ones post-Ghostwire and Deathloop, anyway....and probably some of the MMORPG-focused multiplayer games like Elder Scrolls Online which will probably persist as multi-console games).

 

[Clear]

Not just that, but the folks who propose Microsoft is "leaving money on the table" by not bringing those games to PlayStation, never argue the inverse, i.e how Sony is leaving money on the table by not bringing their 1P content to the 50-something million XBO owners, or the millions of PC gamers who until last year got very few if any 1P ports from the PlayStation.

Well for one thing they've not had teams in place doing this for years. Pretty much all Zenimax studios have. So was Mojang. And you don't up-end profitable ventures in order to stick it to the competition.