Starfield Was Planned For PS5 Prior To Microsoft's ZeniMax Acquisition, FTC Says

These acquisitions seem more and more like Xbox had no choice. Zenimax/Bethesda, Activision/Blizzard, and Square Enix were not afraid of ditching Xbox for a Sony deal.
 
So apparently it's come out in the FTC trial that Starfield was supposed to be PS5 exclusive but fortunately Xbox bought Bethesda. Sony fans feeling persecuted because instead of a PS5 exclusive it is an Xbox first party and exclusive to Xbox/PC.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/micr...val-watch-ot.1641775/page-1186#post-268106492


Heisenberg007 Heisenberg007

turntables GIF
 
what the reason you want to be avb tho?

Spencer said he don't want to raise pricing In these hard times and he simply lied. He's really insincere.
 
I mean, when you consider that Microsoft has unlimited funds- yea, everyone's gotta survive how they can.
Only Microsoft can be peeved enough by this and actually buy an entire company to counter. That's always been my problem.

XBOX backed by anyone else would have sank long ago based on how they have operated for years now. They are kept afloat with unlimited backing and able to purchase studios rather than at least trying organically and building around it. Jamming their way through since the beginning with varying success and they have to use those assets. Sony has to use theirs.
Its a cycle

I own all consoles and ultimately can care less. However, i do have an opinion on it all. LOL
 
Last edited:
Game was in development for years, so not sure why this might surprise anyone?

You don't find it surprising that that after all the expressions of persecution and crying about how unfair Starfield being exclusive to Xbox & PC is because Xbox owns the studio, it's been confirmed in the FTC trial it would have been exclusive to PlayStation if Xbox hadn't bought Zenimax.

What shouldn't be surprising to anyone is that Xbox made it exclusive.
 
These acquisitions seem more and more like Xbox had no choice. Zenimax/Bethesda, Activision/Blizzard, and Square Enix were not afraid of ditching Xbox for a Sony deal.
That is MS fault for being a shitshow when it comes to games. You can't cry wolf because your competition is giving consumers what they want so they can then make these deals.
 
Last edited:
I feel it was just yesterday people were saying why doesn't Microsoft say Sony were going after Starfield if it was true....

They wanted Phil to drop the truth bomb.
 
A casus belli as old as time. "If I didn't do it, they would have done it first!!"

Even if this is true, we all know MS also engages in the practice of paying third-parties in order to keep games off Playstation.
 
Last edited:
You do know it takes 2 sides to make a deal. Microsoft can't just walk in and say yeah give us the next ff game as an exclusive.
They literally can. They proved this when they signed Tomb Raider from the same company. It just takes money which MS have plenty of
 
That is MS fault for being a shitshow when it comes to games. You can't cry wolf because your competition is giving consumers what they want so they can then make these deals.

Wait, now its ms's fault for trying to keep sony from signing exclusives with publishers?
Messed up take away vs saying Sony is anti consumer for signing exclusive deals. Interesting one sided take away.
 
Last edited:
"Heard potentially" isn't confirmation but after Pete Hines' admission yesterday it doesn't matter what Phil says, that was just red meat for twitter he heard the same Imran Khan rumor 😀...ask Pete Phil!
 
Wait, now its ms's fault for trying to keep sony from signing exclusives with publishers?
Messed up take away vs saying Sony is anti consumer for signing exclusive deals. Interesting one sided take away.

I mean the excusing with 3p deals would excuse buying most publishers.
 
Well yeah, they OWN it now so they don't have to ever worry about it any Bethesda games ever getting blocked from their platform again.

Actually they don't have to worry about Bethesda shopping their games to other platforms for exclusivity again. That's what was revealed yesterday. Bethesda wanted to be paid for exclusivity and they went to Sony for a deal. Per Pete Hines.
 
Smart

But sadly those PS5 only bros can still play the game on any number of other non-Xbox devices.

Why so sad that PS5 bros can still play on other devices?


And it also funds Microsoft's deals, hurting Sony back...?
Phil Spencer actually thought it was a good idea to bring this up?

I think after this, Xbox will never be the same. Regardless if they get Activision or not, they are going to have to keep spending exccessive amounts of money to compete with Sony to offset their marketshare dominance in console gaming.
 
Why so sad that PS5 bros can still play on other devices?

I think after this, Xbox will never be the same. Regardless if they get Activision or not, they are going to have to keep spending exccessive amounts of money to compete with Sony to offset their marketshare dominance in console gaming.

To me there's a simple solution to get market share next gen. 40TF xbox series Z for $199 on launch date. Cheaper than Activision.
Meantime buy more smaller devs.
 
I'll take that with a pinch of salt, Starfield is a gigantic project, I don't believe Bethesda would make it exclusive, WRPGs actually has a following on Xbox and the game no doubt would sell enough to justify the port.
 
These acquisitions seem more and more like Xbox had no choice. Zenimax/Bethesda, Activision/Blizzard, and Square Enix were not afraid of ditching Xbox for a Sony deal.
And it's there own fault. One, by screwing up the Xbox One to the point that sales numbers got screwed, and two for compounding the issue of a lower selling console of an already casual-leaning audience in terms of the kinds of games they purchase by engendering Gamepass entitlement.
 
I'll take that with a pinch of salt, Starfield is a gigantic project, I don't believe Bethesda would make it exclusive, WRPGs actually has a following on Xbox and the game no doubt would sell enough to justify the port.
There is a high possibility that Microsoft would always seek the highest profitable option and not do exclusives, unless if some people are saying here is true that they only want the cloud option.
 
I'll take that with a pinch of salt, Starfield is a gigantic project, I don't believe Bethesda would make it exclusive, WRPGs actually has a following on Xbox and the game no doubt would sell enough to justify the port.

Probably just a timed exclusive at most. Everyone already forgot about games like Medium or Scorn being timed exclusives on Xbox.
 
Wait, now its ms's fault for trying to keep sony from signing exclusives with publishers?
Messed up take away vs saying Sony is anti consumer for signing exclusive deals. Interesting one sided take away.
Yes its their fault, because during the 360 era MS had all those deals. Why do they not have them now? Why are these companies moving all their deals to Sony? Because MS ruined all the momentum they had with the Xbox One being a worse machine and higher priced. MS has no one to blame but themselves for the place they are today and why devs/pubs are not on board with doing deals with them.

Can you blame a pub/dev for not wanting to leave a massive amount of the market on the table. Its why they switched to the game pass deals now. Its cheaper to have on game pass and still be on PS day one, than it would to get the PS version to come later. I would bet the almond they are paying for those deals is comparable to the timed exclusive deals Sony is paying and the ones MS did in the past.

Probably just a timed exclusive at most. Everyone already forgot about games like Medium or Scorn being timed exclusives on Xbox.
And the rise of the tomb raider deal.
 
I feel like they could have outbid PlayStation on that exclusivity for a lot less than $7 Billion... but I guess if you got the cash then do it.

They admitted they refused bidding on COD marketing deal, probably same thing here.

And the rise of the tomb raider deal.

Yeah I didn't mentiont it cause some people like to dismiss everything that wasn't done under current leadership like it completely doesn't count, at the same time forgetting the leadership could in theory change any moment.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom