Legacy games refer to games like Elder Scrolls Online which have had a presence on all platforms for years now. Phil is saying he won't pull games like that from the marketplace for PlayStation just because Microsoft owns it now. Fallout 5 and ES6 have no legacy on any platform as they do not exist yet.Or people who know to read entire quotes instead of cherry picked excerpts. The entire quote included this gem: "And even in the future, there might be things that have either contractual things or legacy on different platforms that we'll go do." That does not prove any game goes outside the Xbox eco-system. But it is a literal statement that games with a legacy on different platforms might get made for those platforms. Key word is might, which means we now wait for every actual launch announcement.
When you put “contractual” in the clarification you let the door open to everything.
Legacy in this instance more than likely means legacy titles, i.e titles that are already on other platforms that don't fall into the MMORPG space but otherwise could get additional DLC content, like the upcoming Deathloop.Oh for Pete's sake. How does this thread title exist when he specifically said "or legacy on different platforms that we'll go do."
If you're going to dunk on people, at least make sure the ball goes in!
When you put “contractual” in the clarification you let the door open to everything.
So any game already announced can have a possible contractual deal in place.
Future new agreements will be exclusives.
When you put “contractual” in the clarification you let the door open
A contract saying what, exactly?When you put “contractual” in the clarification you let the door open to everything.
So any game already announced can have a possible contractual deal in place.
Future new agreements will be exclusives.
I'll believe it when I see it. The thought of alienating 100 millions + players seems to go against logic for me.
Luckily these kind of games aren't my cup of tea so I dont really care either way.
I love how the OP completely missed that point:
I do hope that all Bethesda games (besides live-services and the ones they already have contracts to other platforms) but there's nothing that implies what the OP has put in the title.
As usual Uncle Phil once again doesn't want to give a clear answer.
It means existing live service games(like ESO) that have legacy on other platforms.Mods should change the title IMO. It's missleading because Spencer doesn't say what the OP thinks (or wishes) he says.
Exactly. And people here and other places think that only games with contracts that have been announced to the public exist when that isn't always the case.When you put “contractual” in the clarification you let the door open to everything.
So any game already announced can have a possible contractual deal in place.
Future new agreements will be exclusives.
Still blown away by Doom on the Switch, exceptional engine techThis is probably best thing coming from the acquisition, ID Tech 7 is probably best Engine know to mankind currently.
Legacy games refer to games like Elder Scrolls Online which have had a presence on all platforms for years now. Phil is saying he won't pull games like that from the marketplace for PlayStation just because Microsoft owns it now. Fallout 5 and ES6 have no legacy on any platform as they do not exist yet.
I think it goes further than that. Legacy to me is one further: Fallout has a legacy on PC, because that's where it was born and that's where its biggest fans are.legacy means a presence and a strong fanbase
Which current gen console has 100 million+ players?The thought of alienating 100 millions + players seems to go against logic for me.
I think if Sony had signed timed exclusivity with Starfield or ES they would have mentioned it... Some of those straws can be sharp, could get a nasty cut clutching them so hard...Exactly. And people here and other places think that only games with contracts that have been announced to the public exist when that isn't always the case.
I guess this is the next delusion people will cling to. At least we left the tables behind.Exactly. And people here and other places think that only games with contracts that have been announced to the public exist when that isn't always the case.
I'm not reaching for anything. Phil was talking about future games, not me. "And even in the future, there might be things that have either contractual things or legacy on different platforms that we'll go do." His words, not mine.Legacy in this instance more than likely means legacy titles, i.e titles that are already on other platforms that don't fall into the MMORPG space but otherwise could get additional DLC content, like the upcoming Deathloop.
At this point you're reaching to the point of becoming a human centipede with yourself trying to interpret it as something else. Occam's Razor exists for a reason.
If at some point in the future this doesn't turn out to be the case, say a PS5 and/or Switch version of the next DOOM or Elder Scrolls get listed, then you will be proven correct. But the wording today does not suggest that happening and we'd have to wait a ton of time to see if it's the case. Or we can take Occam's Razor and go with the simplest answer based on today's event instead.
Yeah I wouldn’t be surprised, and I’d be all for it!Genuinely think we’ll see a native XCloud app on Switch soon (within 24 months), the full-fat shebang.
It is the perfect marriage. Nintendo first party with a cheap way to access all of MS first party and a lot of mature third party games that aren’t ported to the console.
I didn't say that Sony had timed exclusivity did I. Contracts don't always involve that. If the Indiana Jones game for example had a contract signed that it would be multiplatform then they need to fulfill that.I think if Sony had signed timed exclusivity with Starfield or ES they would have mentioned it... Some of those straws can be sharp, could get a nasty cut clutching them so hard...
There's a reason Phil is carefully picking his words when he talks. He isn't a fanboy like some of you. He is wording things so that if something isn't exclusive later like you fanboys think he won't be attacked for it and called a liar.I guess this is the next delusion people will cling to. At least we left the tables behind.
"But if you're an Xbox customer, the thing I want you to know is this is about delivering great exclusive games for you, that ship on platforms where Game Pass exists"''We have games that exist on other platforms, and we're going to go support those games on the platforms they're on. There's communities of players. We love those communities and we'll continue to invest in them. And even in the future, there might be things that have either contractual things or legacy on different platforms that we'll go do.''
I didn't say that Sony had timed exclusivity did I. Contracts don't always involve that. If the Indiana Jones game for example had a contract signed that it would be multiplatform then they need to fulfill that.
What the fuck do you people think actually happens in the real world? Why would Bathesda sign a contract that states ‘this game is multi platform’? Who the fuck would they even sign that with and what would be the benefit to Bathesda of doing that? If this has happened why haven’t Sony briefed anyone that TeS, Indy and Starfield are coming to PS5? Pro tip; it’s because no such contract has been signed.I didn't say that Sony had timed exclusivity did I. Contracts don't always involve that. If the Indiana Jones game for example had a contract signed that it would be multiplatform then they need to fulfill that.
Well, since he mentioned that along with saying future titles, I don't think he meant New Vegas. But yeah, he could very well have been referring to PC but I am not so sure about that since they want to be present on PC.I think it goes further than that. Legacy to me is one further: Fallout has a legacy on PC, because that's where it was born and that's where its biggest fans are.
There's nothing Bethesda has ever put out that has that sort of connection to PlayStation.
Unless he's talking the very specific software meaning of legacy, in which case he's basically just saying they're not taking New Vegas off PS Now.
Which current gen console has 100 million+ players?
Added together, there are less than 10 per cent of that across the entire console space that these games are going to exist in. There's plenty of time for people to switch ecosystems in that time.
Which platforms that game will release..A contract saying what, exactly?
You don't think indiana jones is multiplatform?
It can have contracts/deals in place in non announced games too.Exactly. And people here and other places think that only games with contracts that have been announced to the public exist when that isn't always the case.
I could imagine that contract being signed by Sony for exclusivity, but cannot imagine a single circumstance where a developer would sign that for a multiplatform release. It serves them no purpose. Maybe a distribution agreement relating to Sony’s 30% cut, but that wouldn’t be binding on anything except sales on the platform.That you have the game releasing in a platform.
Exclusivity sucks. I'm sure Sony will respond with a plethora of timed/full exclusives.Kinda bummed for my PS bros but I get it from a business standpoint.
So Spencer still can't just say it clearly if TES6 (or Starfield) will be exclusive or not, as usual with Spencer never clear with his mouth, like with ROTR exclusivity deal.
Just about to post thisNo, I mean there aren't binding contracts to force a publisher to make a game multiplatform. There are exclusivity deals, but it's up to a publisher if they want to release a game multiplatform. Sony doesn't have a gun to Bethesda's head forcing them to release Starfield on the PS5 unless Sony paid for exclusivity.
Nope.
What ethomaz thinks happens between a developer and Sony when a game is only in pre-production and is still 4+ years away from release...