Dick Jones
Banned
Japanese studios know they have MS over the barrel and want the monetary risk covered to port. They must have heard about Bobby Kotick getting partnership perks such as 80/20 split for just COD access.
Starfield Was Planned For PS5 Prior To Microsoft's ZeniMax Acquisition, FTC Says
- Thread starter Solidsnake_1
- Start date
- News
Banjo64
cumsessed
I can't lie, even though the FTC can't do anything because they are neutered, it's been extremely pleasant listening to Matt Booty and Sarah Bond having Microsoft's PR lies exposed and having to sit there and take it.
And even funnier still is the fanaticals clinging on to any winet they can even though it flies in the face of all rationality.
And even funnier still is the fanaticals clinging on to any winet they can even though it flies in the face of all rationality.
Are we surprisedI mean MS will say anything to pass this deal and then spin it the way they intended. Such a huge acquisition is never good for competition or gamers, no matter who is buying.
My surprise is more about why you people are pretending this is some grand deception. But I'm perfectly willing to toe your line if you can show where Microsoft promised to keep Starfield multi-platform post acquisition.
They've been consistent in their 'case by case' approach. Minecraft has been multiplatform since they bought Mojang, even through all xbox struggles last gen. They've kept ALL minecraft spin-offs also on PlayStation, released Minecraft VR for PSVR, signed off on Ori on Switch, put no obstacle to Cuphead's release on other platforms and released Quake Remastered on all platforms.
In this case, they've decided not to bring their game and their IP to PlayStation.
You mean like how Valve gave Square 'incentive' to bring FF7R to Steam?
Why? Please educate us with cold, hard facts. Not assumptions without evidence. That's all I am asking is evidence that Sony blocked this from Xbox.It's been three years since FF7R Part 1 was released. I'm pretty sure everyone and their dog already knows it's not coming to Xbox, and they know exactly why
Similar, not the same thing. But again, we don't know what influenced the decision not to release on Xbox as well as the canning the last-gen versions. Again, for all we know, it might have been a decision on the part of the developer. Is there evidence of the Xbox version of Stellar Blade being canceled because of Sony? If there is, I'll rest my case. That's different from what we have here due to there being a document claiming cancellation of PS5 versions of ABK games. I hope we're clear on the distinction between the two.
Well, yeah I guess. So we finally agree that Xbox canceled a PS5 version then, yes? We can finally stop the narrative that it was never coming to PS5 in the first place.
I mean, you XBOX guys (2 of you) can LOL all you want, I thought we were having a decent discussion.
X-Wing
Member
Over 100 million user base and resounding sales from previous games on the platform should be incentive enough.
Same doesn't happen on the Xbox, so Microsoft has to put in extra work.
Dick Jones
Banned
What? Epic Games subsidised bringing FFVII to PC for timed PC storefront exclusive. Are you uneducated or trolling?
Skifi28
Member
What does valve have to do with anything? I gave you examples of games thought to never come to Xbox that turned out not be part of some sinister deal like originally thought, but just required Microsoft to actually bother.
I don't know what specifically happened with valve and epic on this game, but it sounds like a bad example as steam is the most popular store that publishers will target unless there's a deal saying otherwise. Unlike xbox that is the least popular platform and might not get a port even if there's no deal in place to exclude it. Let's also not mention how putting your game in a different PC store carries miniscule cost, unlike porting to a different platform.
Last edited:
And yet no one here has been able to detail these 'lies' that have now been exposed. Perhaps you can do the honors? With words this time…emojis can be rather ambiguous
We already knew they'd killed any plans of a PS5 release the first day they announced platforms. Have you seen me push the narrative it wasn't coming to PS5?
But that's not what the thread is about, is it? It's really about the 'outrage' that Xbox took the decision to make their own IP exclusive.
We ARE having a decent discussion. I've been unfailingly cordial in my responses to you. I'm just amused about your responses to the FF7R exclusivity situation.
Banjo64
cumsessed
Take your pick.And yet no one here has been able to detail these 'lies' that have now been exposed. Perhaps you can do the honors? With words this time…emojis can be rather ambiguous
How is negotiating with Disney to remove PlayStation from the Indiana Jones deal 'expanding gaming' or proving that the Bethesda deal 'is not about removing games from PlayStation'?
How is Sarah Bond saying that Xbox don't want a separate xCloud SKU the truth, when in September last year her testimony was that they do want an xCloud SKU in the future?
How does Matt Booty saying 'fuck every other cloud and subscription provider, we're building an impenetrable moat' align with Microsoft's public message about CoD being available everywhere forever?
I mean if you could start with those, and be frank and honest in your response rather than using roundabout banana logic, then we can have a conversation
Last edited:
Valve =/= 'Epic Games'.
I mentioned Valve to show that Square could put the game on another platform without any incentives being paid. However…
this is a good point. Porting over from the EGS release (which they were paid for) to Steam would have been trivial.
That said, it all boils down to no AAA Final Fantasy release on Xbox, thanks in no small part to Sony's intervention.
And as I said earlier, it's not an issue for me, especially since I'm not platform constrained. Business decision and competition and all that. All parties are making cut-throat moves for marketshare.
Team Andromeda
Member
Why are we getting silly and piss-poor threads like this?
It's like saying that when MS bought RARE they had GameCube games in the works
When SEGA, Nintendo, SONY or MS bought a studio it wasn't to develop games on rival consoles.
It's like saying that when MS bought RARE they had GameCube games in the works
When SEGA, Nintendo, SONY or MS bought a studio it wasn't to develop games on rival consoles.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, putting their games on PC and Xcloud is pretty much what they consider 'expanding gaming'. They've stated that before, and there's certainly a reason why none of you have cited this as a gotcha when they've announced their XGS games like Fable or Pentiment.
They haven't removed any released game from PlayStation and ongoing live service games have still been maintained.
The promise they made with respect to Bethesda games was that decisions for releases for future games would be made on a case-by-case basis. And so far, they've kept to that. Quake Remaster was multiplatform, and you can bet your farm on Quake 2 Remaster to be the same. Zenimax Online Studios is working on an AAA MMO, and that's certainly going to be on all compatible platforms, including PlayStation.
As she said, corporations can change their minds based on market feedback. It's a fluid solution that's currently underperforming for Xbox.
Hell, even the CMA's block on the ABK deal presumes changes in Activision's already established position on putting their games on subscription services and cloud platforms.
Microsoft's public message is that COD isn't being taken off PlayStation post acquisition. They've signed binding agreements with the EU on that now, and have signed 10 year deals with Nintendo and multiple cloud providers.
I'm puzzled why you think this is an open switch. Matt Booty's email (if that's what you're referring to) is old, predating the acquisition and he certainly isn't the one making decisions. Not to mention whatever plans he may have been detailing has been overridden by Microsoft's public statements AND their binding contracts and agreed remedies with a powerful regulator.
Last edited:
hyperbertha
Member
This is the definition of grabbing at straws. Coalition is mediocre. Turn 10 and playground keeps producing the same racing games over and over. It's like calling infinity ward a good dev.
hyperbertha
Member
But I bet you'll shed some tears for ms if the deal doesn't go through.
xHunter
Member
This doesnt make sense. They were going to put it on xcloud anyways. Why did they have to go to Disney and cut the PS5 (+ maybe next gen switch) Version? Getting rid of 1 or 2 platforms is not "expanding gaming"
01011001
Banned
Polyphony is not a good dev guys! you heard it here first!
Coalition's games release in the 80 - 90% MC range and they're one of the best UE studios in the business. Great efficiency too. Nothing 'mediocre' about them.
Your comments about Turn 10 and Playground are absolutely silly. If putting out critically acclaimed racing games was easy, why are EA and Ubisoft (among others) struggling at it?
{insert code here}
Member
If MS were smart and/or had some BDE, they would've launched Redfall and Starfield (the Beth games) on PS5 and used them as bullets in their ABK case to get the govt off their backs. It probably would've worked and, for their trouble, they probably generate at least a billion dollars of revenue selling Starfield on PS5.
You sacrifice Starfield but you walk away with COD and can do whatever you want from that point on.
You sacrifice Starfield but you walk away with COD and can do whatever you want from that point on.
I suggest you re-read what I said. Slowly, this time.
'They were going to put it on xCloud and PC anyway'
Yes. putting their games on Cloud and PC is what they mean by 'expanding gaming'. Not going third party and putting all their first party games on PlayStation or Switch.
Are you arguing that an independent Bethesda were guaranteeing cloud streaming for all their games day 1?
Why would they have done that, when the general assumption was that the deal would pass on its own merits?
We've discussed the pros and cons of exclusivity extensively already, so no point in reopening that. That decision had to be balanced with Xbox need for exclusives to sell consoles and move Gamepass subscriptions.
FTC would still have opposed the deal, no matter what. And a Starfield PS5 port would still not have satisfied the CMA's Cloud objections.
hyperbertha
Member
No they are not. You are correct.
90? Let's not kid ourselves. They are mainly a low 80s studio. Ubisoft level.
Last edited:
Dick Jones
Banned
The PC porting cost was covered by Epic and after it was just to put on Steam as it was free money. SE make stupid decisions but they aren't stupid enough to not put an already ported game on the biggest PC store. Valve don't need incentives in that scenario.
Microsoft do, as they don't have enough of an audience that porting it willingly would generate cover the costs of the game. FFVII Remake is outside exclusivity so it appears that MS need to cough up for access.
xHunter
Member
I did read your post. But it seems to me like you didnt bother to read what
Banjo64
said.He was talking about the Indiana Jones game, where we now know that MS went to Disney to make the game exclusive instead of releasing on multiple platforms like previously agreed on.
How can you look at this situation and be like "yup, they expanded gaming".
Facts are:
Its a first party studio now -> high chance of coming to gamepass and xcloud day 1. No need to renegotiate and exclude platforms with the license holder.
Never said that.
Last edited:
intheinbetween
Member
I was genuinely asking IF FF VII Remake was already announced for XBOX since that's what I understood from your post, but I see it's not. S-E is a multiplatform developer, IF they decided to take one route or another it's up to them it's their business, actually iirc they were shopping for the highest bidder to get the exclusive for the latest FF titles (or at least for FF XVI) so the "long-term partnership" dilemma doesn't apply when money is involved.
Also, you are mentioning Forza, Gears, and Halo, those are first party titles from Microsoft, such as Uncharted, God of War or Gran Turismo from Sony, so that doesn't apply to this discussion.
Once again, Stellar Blade was known as a multiplatform title, something changed and probably it's linked to Sony getting the exclusive as they did with Kenna and Stray, but again money is involved not friendship, special preference or long-term partnership. And it's okay to get exclusives by moneyhatting, it's been like that for so many decades that they don't bother me at all (iirc Nintendo got the Street Fighter 2 exclusive back in the day) thankfully I own XSX, PS5, Switch and a decent PC, so I couldn't careless, but reading some comments make me chuckle.
Last edited:
EDMIX
Writes a lot, says very little
lol this is one of the wildest takes I've heard on NeoGaf in some time, like complete looney
Hyper needs help lol
Truth.
I have no fucking clue how anyone puts PD, Turn 10, Playground games as "not good" or "mediocre". They are above majority of racing developers on the whole planet in terms of their core genre. Even the comments about Coalition don't make any sense, I don't see anything with their scores that would argue they are lessor or "mediocre", I'd argue they are above the average in regards to their quality.
The comments regarding Infinity Ward (the current team left at Activision) is even more questionable, that team and ReSpawn are easily some of the best teams to ever create a FPS in the history of gaming.
It would have made more sense if Hyper just put a fucking ( /s ) next to the comment or something lol
So I'd question us getting Gears games back to back before I question the QUALITY of those games, that is a criticism of the publisher, not the quality of the team or what they can or can't do or something. So Infinity Ward making many CODs doesn't make them a bad team, even with the rest of them at ReSpawn, those are still some of the highest quality teams regarding the FPS genre for anyone to be questioning that
(unless they need real help understanding game development or something)
I did read your post. But it seems to me like you didnt bother to read what
He was talking about the Indiana Jones game, where we now know that MS went to Disney to make the game exclusive instead of releasing on multiple platforms like previously agreed on.
How can you look at this situation and be like "yup, they expanded gaming".
Facts are:
Its a first party studio now -> high chance of coming to gamepass and xcloud day 1. No need to renegotiate and exclude platforms with the license holder.
Never said that.
Microsoft makes a blanket claim that putting their games on XCloud - all of them - dramatically expands the potential audience for their games.
At the same time, they're unwilling to have one of their most experienced studios be tied down for 5 years making a game that will not be exclusive.
The two are not mutually exclusive situations.
They also needed to renegotiate with Disney, since the original agreement between Disney and Bethesda would most certainly not have allowed for Gamepass and XCloud release. Microsoft could not have unilaterally made that decision.
xHunter
Member
Negotiating for Gamepass and xcloud does not mean they would have to also negotiate to remove other platforms. Which is the point i am trying to make. If they only renegotiated to add xcloud and gamepass i would have totally agreed with you, that they are trying to "expand gaming". But in this case, i have to disagree.
Morrie’s wig shop
Banned
AND…….. they bought them and all focus was shifted to Xbox and PC and all other versions were nixed
Riky
$MSFT
Looks like we're getting it sooner due to concentrating on Microsoft platforms.
"
Asked if Starfield would be coming out this year if it wasn't exclusive to Xbox and PC, Hines said "In my opinion, no, this game would not be coming out in nine weeks if we were supporting an entirely different platform."
"Focusing on fewer platforms has been a big benefit to that team," he added. Being on more platforms would mean "it's going to take longer, it's going to cost more. It's just a far greater risk in my mind."
Big benefit to the team.
"
Asked if Starfield would be coming out this year if it wasn't exclusive to Xbox and PC, Hines said "In my opinion, no, this game would not be coming out in nine weeks if we were supporting an entirely different platform."
"Focusing on fewer platforms has been a big benefit to that team," he added. Being on more platforms would mean "it's going to take longer, it's going to cost more. It's just a far greater risk in my mind."
Big benefit to the team.
Bernkastel
Ask me about my fanboy energy!
Forza Horizon games are not the "same racing games over and over", each game is in a different location. Even with Forza Motorsport, the latest game was a complete reboot from the ground. Turn 10 are called great dev, because they push Xbox hardware to the max and there games have been used to showcase the capabalities of the platform. They said Forza Motorsport 5 will be 1080p 60 fps and no one beleived them, they said Forza Motorsport 7 will be 4K 60 fps on Xbox One X and no one beleived them.
Also, Playground Games are diversifying with Fable.
Never said that they needed to remove platforms.
They had to negotiate to add GP and XCloud. They used the opportunity to limit platforms to Xbox/PC exclusive.
Limiting release to Xbox/PC is in line with the release strategy for the vast majority of their first party teams. And they consider Cloud support as a means to reach more gamers than before…for ALL their first party lineup.
Again, at that stage the game would have been early in development and work wouldn't have progressed on console ports to any meaningful level.
Aligns with what Square said for FFXVI so…
FeastYoEyes
Member
Bringing a bunch of people to court that benefited (monetarily) from the acquisition isn't going to get you biased answers at all....
sankt-Antonio
Banned
Risk? giving 18(?) million PS5 users the possibility to buy the game is a risk now? I could have understood if we are looking at a PS3, but the PS5 is the closest to the MS console it ever was.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
You'd think Microsoft having a "criminal record" of anti-trust actions would prevent them from earning the benefit of the doubt for anyone who isn't a shareholder, but alas.
Topher
Identifies as young
Seriously. Time to drop that bullshit act. It's been exposed.
DryvBy
Member
This is something a caveman might think when they see the current situation. No recollection of the past or present, just a tribal warfare. Zug zug, me company good good. Zug company bad zug.
Topher
Identifies as young
Think this will throw some water on all the white knighting of a $2 trillion corporation that we see from those fanaticals?
Last edited:
Doctor Hades
Member
I agree with this as Microsoft have already admitted that they only have 16-20% of the console market share and I doubt that Starfield being the best game ever released will change that. They need to have a few high quality Starfields under their belt before that happens.
I own an Xbox Series X but compared with the PS5 and Switch, the console almost feels irrelevant this generation. Hopefully, Starfield and Forza Motorsport will help to change that.
GHG
Member
You've failed to address this:
We now have evidence where they've outright cancelled multiple games that Bethesda had in development for the PS5.
Go ahead and spin that one. Have fun, it's entertaining.
You've failed to address this:
We now have evidence where they've outright cancelled multiple games that Bethesda had in development for the PS5.
Go ahead and spin that one. Have fun, it's entertaining.
Ah, but I've already talked about this earlier. In the first paragraph, no less. Read?
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Hero of Spielberg
Member
What about listening to companies that lose market share, would their answers be biased?
GHG
Member
I read it, it doesn't address it. You're sidestepping it.
Explain how them literally taking games in development off of other platforms is consistent with the statement that the deal was "not done to take games away from other platforms".
If they wanted to be consistent with that statement then would the logical thing to do not mean leave anything that's already in development alone instead of going out of their way to cancel games?In some instances they've even had to go as far to renegotiate contracts.
So come on, give it a spin.
Last edited:
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Not releasing on is not the same as taking away, sorryI read it, it doesn't address it. You're sidestepping it.
Explain how them literally taking games in development off of other platforms is consistent with the statement that the deal was "not done to take games away from other platforms".
If they wanted to be consistent with that statement then would the logical thing to do not mean leave anything that's already in development alone instead of going out of their way to cancel games?In some instances they've even had to go as far to renegotiate contracts.
So come on, give it a spin.
Last edited:
GHG
Member
We now have factual information stating that absent of the acquisition the following games would have released on more platforms than they have done or are scheduled to:
- Redfall
- Starfield
- Indiana Jones
Last edited: