Support NeoGAF

[Snake29]

There is difference between buying a publisher to make it your own 1st party, vs blocking 3rd part games, that you don't own from other system.

bungie, bethesda, and Activision belong to who bought them. The other systems can't get them, because the other company fully owns the entire thing.

Sony has to pay MS $67b, and $7b to get Activision and Bethesda games. MS has to pay $3b to get bungie games.

3rd party however, no one owns them. It doesn't make a sense, stopping them from releasing on other systems. Unless they are owned by one of these systems, it shit, and pathetic. Whether it's MS with stalker 2, or Sony with ff7r.

Lol, cut the crap dude…ask MS why they needed to moneyhat STALKER 2 for instance? I bet you will say “the game is not that big of a deal”….bla bla bla bla.

And sure, i can see why people were pissed when they heard that Starfield was not coming on PS5 anymore, because this game would’ve come to PS5. For FF, it was never in development for Xbox. At this point, MS with 2 major publishers and some other random studios that also developed PS games.

I Don't understand how some still dare to complain. Maybe just resign yourself to the fact that Japan and Xbox will not be a match. Maybe it is time for Sony to acquire Square….

 

[Zeroing]

What is the reason exactly?
What is wrong with timed-exclusives or exclusives at all?
It is the opposite it helps the industry… helps developers to make more games… helps the platforms to have identical making users to have multi platforms.

you really think people are asking those questions? This is neogaf, anything is a good reason for console wars.

Not that one. The other one.

I don’t even wanna know!

 

[Dr Bass]

Remember when Housemarque was bought and you said:

And then you keep cheerleading for every Sony acquisition, like after Bluepoint? Or even last week?


Looks like you’re a huge hypocrite who only worries about consolidation when others do it.

Have some self-respect before calling others out.

I know this has been discussed and mentioned ad nauseam on this board, but surely you see the difference here.

What was the last Housemarque game on Xbox? What was the last Bluepoint game on Xbox? These are both tight relationships fostered by Sony financing their ideas. Sorta like making a long term dating relationship a marriage.

Now ... lets look at Bethesda. A long history of multi platform publishing. From what I've seen of stats, Skyrim sold more on PS platforms than Xbox. Now I can't say that with certainty, but the short amount of research I tried to do pointed in that direction. I have purchased Skyrim three times. Once on Xbox, PS, and the latest was the Switch version. I won't purchase a single copy of StarField, because I don't have to. MS is giving it to me "for free" on Xbox, and I just won't have the option on PS5 and Switch. And neither will tens of millions of gamers who will now have that option removed from them. And that goes for all future Bethesda/Zenimax games most likely. I mean that includes Doom of all things. The idea of Doom being an Xbox exclusive is an absurd concept knowing it's history. This is MS basically trying to burn down the industry and keep it for itself. People are worried Activision is next, despite their publicly stated commitment. I couldn't care less because I think Activision stuff is bad but hey, I know CoD is massively popular.

You don't see the difference between those things? You don't see the difference between Housemarque, Bluepoint, Haven (which hasn't even released a game!), Firesprite and .... Zenimax and Activision? Please be honest here. Both with yourself and others.

Also this could be my interpretation (though this seems to be how it comes across to me) but look at the difference in what makes each platform specific fanbase excited. The Sony people seem happy they will continue to get good games from those small houses. These are games that were never on the Xbox and never would be. They needed support from Sony to exist. The Xbox people seem happy Sony (curiously not Nintendo) people won't get StarField and potentially CoD anymore. That's what makes them happy. These people are giant pieces of to think this way. Again, none of that affects me because I have all of it, but I am sad for people who have games removed from their potential libraries because MS can't seemingly foster a studio from the ground up if their company depended on it, so they have to go spend nearly 100 billion dollars to essentially shrink the size of the industry in their favor.

 

[Naked Lunch]

Now that the dust has settled on FF7 Remake -
No spoilers - but is the remake even worth playing over the original? I havent played it yet.
All I see is negative reactions to the Remake anymore.
Im not new to the game and was there for the PS1 game's launch.

 

[Lognor]

Now we are mentioning gamepads, you can't be sure about it.

We now that Sony in RE8 case put a special condition not to put the game on gamepass during release or for certain period.

That's a great point! Sony and SE are definitely close on FFVIIR so I would not be surprised if there was some stipulation preventing it from being available on other subscription services. But then that begs the question, if it can't be on Game Pass would SE bother porting the game to Xbox? I don't know what jrpg sales look like on Xbox, but SE would know. If they're that bad and SE can't get any of that Game Pass money they may decide not to port it (unless MS writes them a check to port it...)

It depends on how important you think the story is to the game. I kinda think it tends to be pretty important. The graphics and music, are all fantastically redone.

The story seems to take what's meaningful about the original (hidden amidst all of its usual FF style shenanigans and anime style goofy stuff) and flushes it down the toilet. I think it is a dumpster fire in that regard. All they had to do was literally remake it with the same story. Sure, they could expand the story a bit since they wanted Midgar to last 30 hours or whatever but ... that's not what they did. They changed it ... while sorta keep it the same. But at the same time you need to have played the original to sorta get it. It's ridiculous and comes across like a "story" a third grader would write as fan fiction after playing the first game.

I kinda think Xbox only gamers are better off not getting it honestly. One of the few games in my life I regret buying and supporting. I know there are going to be plenty who disagree with me but ... those people are wrong.

Interesting. Yeah, for me, in a jrpg, story is HUGELY important. That's one of the few genres that I actually give a damn for the story.

 

[kingfey]

Lol, cut the crap dude…ask MS why they needed to moneyhat STALKER 2 for instance? I bet you will say “the game is not that big of a deal”….bla bla bla bla.

Unless they are owned by one of these systems, it shit, and pathetic.

Read first.

And sure, i can see why people were pissed when they heard that Starfield was not coming on PS5 anymore, because this game would’ve come to PS5. For FF, it was never in development for Xbox. At this point, MS with 2 major publishers and some other random studios that also developed PS games.

MS owns bethesda now. They pay for their employees, their development, and everything that bethesda does. Sony has nothing to do with bethesda, aside of the contractual agreement.

MS can do whatever they want with bethesda IPs. Same for Activision, if the deal is approved.

Sony however, doesn't own Square Enix. They don't pay for Square employees or anything.
This was just a deal, to block the game from appearing on another console. Same as how MS is paying stalker 2 devs, to keep stalker 2 away from ps5.

They are 2 different things.

I Don't understand how some still dare to complain. Maybe just resign yourself to the fact that Japan and Xbox will not be a match. Maybe it is time for Sony to acquire Square….

Because this is a 3rd party, which neither MS or Sony owns.
If Sony owned Square Enix, no one would have been mad. Because Square games now belong to Sony. MS will have nothing to do with Square. Just like how they have nothing to do with Bungie, Since Sony will own them.


3rd party aren't owned by anyone. No console has any right to block their games from any system. Its not the samething thing as owning the studios. Since you are paying the company, to be functional.

 

[Dr Bass]

That's a great point! Sony and SE are definitely close on FFVIIR so I would not be surprised if there was some stipulation preventing it from being available on other subscription services. But then that begs the question, if it can't be on Game Pass would SE bother porting the game to Xbox? I don't know what jrpg sales look like on Xbox, but SE would know. If they're that bad and SE can't get any of that Game Pass money they may decide not to port it (unless MS writes them a check to port it...)


Interesting. Yeah, for me, in a jrpg, story is HUGELY important. That's one of the few genres that I actually give a damn for the story.

Did you play the original? I don't want to give spoilers, but there is a reason I say they destroyed the game. Like the entire point of the game, and the reason the creator wrote the story he did. It borders on pretty disrespectful if you ask me.

 

[NonPhixion]

Did you play the original? I don't want to give spoilers, but there is a reason I say they destroyed the game. Like the entire point of the game, and the reason the creator wrote the story he did. It borders on pretty disrespectful if you ask me.

So the lead writer on the remake destroyed his own work as he was the lead writer on the original? That take borders on pretty dumb, if you ask me.

 

[Vognerful]

Read first.

MS owns bethesda now. They pay for their employees, their development, and everything that bethesda does. Sony has nothing to do with bethesda, aside of the contractual agreement.

MS can do whatever they want with bethesda IPs. Same for Activision, if the deal is approved.

Sony however, doesn't own Square Enix. They don't pay for Square employees or anything.
This was just a deal, to block the game from appearing on another console. Same as how MS is paying stalker 2 devs, to keep stalker 2 away from ps5.

They are 2 different things.



Because this is a 3rd party, which neither MS or Sony owns.
If Sony owned Square Enix, no one would have been mad. Because Square games now belong to Sony. MS will have nothing to do with Square. Just like how they have nothing to do with Bungie, Since Sony will own them.


3rd party aren't owned by anyone. No console has any right to block their games from any system. Its not the samething thing as owning the studios. Since you are paying the company, to be functional.

Just to add a point about final fantasy and how some guys consider it a "Sony heritage game". Final fantasy was a multiplatform game almost as long a ps1 and 2 exclusive, if not longer.

Ff7 to ff12 : 1997 to 2006
Ff11, 13 trio and 15: 2006 to 2016

 

[Snake29]

Read first.

MS owns bethesda now. They pay for their employees, their development, and everything that bethesda does. Sony has nothing to do with bethesda, aside of the contractual agreement.

MS can do whatever they want with bethesda IPs. Same for Activision, if the deal is approved.

Sony however, doesn't own Square Enix. They don't pay for Square employees or anything.
This was just a deal, to block the game from appearing on another console. Same as how MS is paying stalker 2 devs, to keep stalker 2 away from ps5.

They are 2 different things.



Because this is a 3rd party, which neither MS or Sony owns.
If Sony owned Square Enix, no one would have been mad. Because Square games now belong to Sony. MS will have nothing to do with Square. Just like how they have nothing to do with Bungie, Since Sony will own them.


3rd party aren't owned by anyone. No console has any right to block their games from any system. Its not the samething thing as owning the studios. Since you are paying the company, to be functional.

I'm sure you didn't even complain about it in the main STALKER 2 thread on this forum.

So no sorry...you guys are spinning and using this pure as an excuse.

 

[MasterCornholio]

It depends on how important you think the story is to the game. I kinda think it tends to be pretty important. The graphics and music, are all fantastically redone.

The story seems to take what's meaningful about the original (hidden amidst all of its usual FF style shenanigans and anime style goofy stuff) and flushes it down the toilet. I think it is a dumpster fire in that regard. All they had to do was literally remake it with the same story. Sure, they could expand the story a bit since they wanted Midgar to last 30 hours or whatever but ... that's not what they did. They changed it ... while sorta keeping it the same. But at the same time you need to have played the original to sorta get it. It's ridiculous and comes across like a "story" a third grader would write as fan fiction after playing the first game.

I kinda think Xbox only gamers are better off not getting it honestly. One of the few games in my life I regret buying and supporting. I know there are going to be plenty who disagree with me but ... those people are wrong.

I did beat the original a short while ago so I didn't really notice that the story was that different. I agree they did change it a bit but most of it was kind of the same.

Contrary to what some are saying I don't think it's a bad idea if Xbox fans are able to play this game.

 

[kingfey]

Just to add a point about final fantasy and how some guys consider it a "Sony heritage game". Final fantasy was a multiplatform game almost as long a ps1 and 2 exclusive, if not longer.

Ff7 to ff12 : 1997 to 2006
Ff11, 13 trio and 15: 2006 to 2016

FF coming to xbox at that time was heated debate.
People were super pissed, that it come to xbox.

 

[Vognerful]

I'm sure you didn't even complain about it in the main STALKER 2 thread on this forum.

So no sorry...you guys are spinning and using this pure as an excuse.

Why would he complain?

Do you feel like complaining about it? does it affect you?

 

[kingfey]

I'm sure you didn't even complain about it in the main STALKER 2 thread on this forum.

So no sorry...you guys are spinning and using this pure as an excuse.

You are really thick headed aren't you?

I already told you. Making 3rd party timed exclusive, that you don't own is shit, and garbage tactic.

It doesn't benefit anyone.

 

[Vognerful]

FF coming to xbox at that time was heated debate.
People were super pissed, that it come to xbox.

Lol.

just to show that Dr Bass and his piss take about "shitty xbox fans" is actually the other way around.

 

[kingfey]

Lol.

just to show that Dr Bass and his piss take about "shitty xbox fans" is actually the other way around.

I dont take his takes serious anymore.

 

[Vognerful]

I know this has been discussed and mentioned ad nauseam on this board, but surely you see the difference here.

What was the last Housemarque game on Xbox? What was the last Bluepoint game on Xbox? These are both tight relationships fostered by Sony financing their ideas. Sorta like making a long term dating relationship a marriage.

Now ... lets look at Bethesda. A long history of multi platform publishing. From what I've seen of stats, Skyrim sold more on PS platforms than Xbox. Now I can't say that with certainty, but the short amount of research I tried to do pointed in that direction. I have purchased Skyrim three times. Once on Xbox, PS, and the latest was the Switch version. I won't purchase a single copy of StarField, because I don't have to. MS is giving it to me "for free" on Xbox, and I just won't have the option on PS5 and Switch. And neither will tens of millions of gamers who will now have that option removed from them. And that goes for all future Bethesda/Zenimax games most likely. I mean that includes Doom of all things. The idea of Doom being an Xbox exclusive is an absurd concept knowing it's history. This is MS basically trying to burn down the industry and keep it for itself. People are worried Activision is next, despite their publicly stated commitment. I couldn't care less because I think Activision stuff is bad but hey, I know CoD is massively popular.

You don't see the difference between those things? You don't see the difference between Housemarque, Bluepoint, Haven (which hasn't even released a game!), Firesprite and .... Zenimax and Activision? Please be honest here. Both with yourself and others.

Also this could be my interpretation (though this seems to be how it comes across to me) but look at the difference in what makes each platform specific fanbase excited. The Sony people seem happy they will continue to get good games from those small houses. These are games that were never on the Xbox and never would be. They needed support from Sony to exist. The Xbox people seem happy Sony (curiously not Nintendo) people won't get StarField and potentially CoD anymore. That's what makes them happy. These people are giant pieces of to think this way. Again, none of that affects me because I have all of it, but I am sad for people who have games removed from their potential libraries because MS can't seemingly foster a studio from the ground up if their company depended on it, so they have to go spend nearly 100 billion dollars to essentially shrink the size of the industry in their favor.

I know you went with a tangent here with kingfey about those studios, but my main subject was Final Fantasy and games that are known to multiplatform (example also is street fighter 5).

Your comment also about xbox fans is disingenuous. Excluding the hardcore fans that you see some of them here, most of them would be happy of MS bought a studio because that guarantees their games would come to gamepass day 1. if the games not released on other consoles, that depends from one person to another.

 

[DarkMage619]

I'm sure you didn't even complain about it in the main STALKER 2 thread on this forum.

So no sorry...you guys are spinning and using this pure as an excuse.

Comparing Stalker 2 to Final Fantasy is quite the stretch. Those titles aren't anywhere near as popular. On top of that there was clear date when the exclusivity period would end on that title. It's three months. Also using your own logic was there a long and storied history of Stalker on PlayStation? I'll bet my account there are more Final Fantasy games on Xbox than Stalker games on PlayStation.

It sucks when a company pays to keep a 3rd party game with IP they don't own off other platforms. MS doesn't have to put the IP they own on other platforms but they have put far more of their IP on non-Xbox platforms than Sony ever has with their IP so even on that front there are vast differences between how the two companies move.

 

[Vognerful]

Comparing Stalker 2 to Final Fantasy is quite the stretch. Those titles aren't anywhere near as popular. On top of that there was clear date when the exclusivity period would end on that title. It's three months. Also using your own logic was there a long and storied history of Stalker on PlayStation? I'll bet my account there are more Final Fantasy games on Xbox than Stalker games on PlayStation.

Bro, we just checked. FF was a multiplier (released on xbox) longer that it was an exclusive to Sony consoles.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

It takes two to tango. If SE had approached Microsoft for a deal to keep FF7 exclusive to Xbox they would have taken it.

(Or not, JRPGs are not a priority for MS and they don't sell on Xbox anyway).

 

[TidusYuna]

Now that the dust has settled on FF7 Remake -
No spoilers - but is the remake even worth playing over the original? I havent played it yet.
All I see is negative reactions to the Remake anymore.
Im not new to the game and was there for the PS1 game's launch.

It is worth playing. There is no way explain why without spoiling the game. FF7 remake doesn't replace the original, it makes the original even more important.

 

[dcmk7]

It sucks when a company pays to keep a 3rd party game with IP they don't own off other platforms

From what I understand they pay for the majority of the development costs involved. So how on earth does 'it suck' when the alternative is that it won't potentially be made?

If you stop console warring for a moment you might realise that your argument is absurd.

 

[DarkMage619]

Bro, we just checked. FF was a multiplier (released on xbox) longer that it was an exclusive to Sony consoles.

This means again there is no comparison between Sony blocking games from the Xbox platform and MS fully purchasing a developer and IP.

MS owns bethesda now. They pay for their employees, their development, and everything that bethesda does. Sony has nothing to do with bethesda, aside of the contractual agreement.

MS can do whatever they want with bethesda IPs. Same for Activision, if the deal is approved.

Sony however, doesn't own Square Enix. They don't pay for Square employees or anything.
This was just a deal, to block the game from appearing on another console. Same as how MS is paying stalker 2 devs, to keep stalker 2 away from ps5.

They are 2 different things.

Well stated. MS still on occasion still puts its IP on PlayStation far cry from simply blocking 3rd party games from Xbox. It's good MS is taking steps to ensure their customers get content Sony can't block.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Comparing Stalker 2 to Final Fantasy is quite the stretch. Those titles aren't anywhere near as popular. On top of that there was clear date when the exclusivity period would end on that title. It's three months. Also using your own logic was there a long and storied history of Stalker on PlayStation? I'll bet my account there are more Final Fantasy games on Xbox than Stalker games on PlayStation.

It sucks when a company pays to keep a 3rd party game with IP they don't own off other platforms. MS doesn't have to put the IP they own on other platforms but they have put far more of their IP on non-Xbox platforms than Sony ever has with their IP so even on that front there are vast differences between how the two companies move.

Lmao man you're such a blatant fanboy with these posts and you still try to deny it

 

[MarkMe2525]

I'm unaware of any FF7 titles that have ever left the PlayStation farm save a mobile entry or two and the PC releases of the original FF7 and recently FF7R. To date, FF7 titles like Crisis Core and Dirge Of Cerberus have never even been rereleased and you still require old hardware to play them. So I'd say the chances of FF7R coming to Xbox are slim to none. FF7 has always primarily been a PS exclusive with the OG game eventually showing up on PC and Before Crisis being pn Japanese mobile.

Someone may have already responded with this, but og ff7 was available on game pass for consoles for a little while.

 

[Lognor]

From what I understand they pay for the majority of the development costs involved. So how on earth does 'it suck' when the alternative is that it won't potentially be made?

If you stop console warring for a moment you might realise that your argument is absurd.

No, they didn't! Sony did not pay for development. That's laughable. And to say it wouldn't exist without Sony...GTFO lol

 

[Captain Toad]

Now that the dust has settled on FF7 Remake -
No spoilers - but is the remake even worth playing over the original? I havent played it yet.
All I see is negative reactions to the Remake anymore.
Im not new to the game and was there for the PS1 game's launch.

The game is awesome.

But, it should not be played INSTEAD of the original. It should be played AFTER the original. Despite its name and marketing, it is NOT a remake of FF7, it is a sequel where a certain character uses time travel and alternate universes to "remake" or undo the events of the original game.

 

[Captain Toad]

From what I understand they pay for the majority of the development costs involved. So how on earth does 'it suck' when the alternative is that it won't potentially be made?

If you stop console warring for a moment you might realise that your argument is absurd.

I think you're thinking of Street Fighter V.

 

[dcmk7]

No, they didn't! Sony did not pay for development. That's laughable. And to say it wouldn't exist without Sony...GTFO lol

Point was about exclusively in general not about a specific company and you're pretty wrong here.

You think Capcom did SF5 for free? (IIRC Capcom confirmed it wouldn't have been made without Sony support) and why would SquareEnix commit to FF7R for nothing exactly? Of course the deal would help ensure they can budget development costs and mitigate the risk involved.

It's pretty dumb and naïve take.

 

[Lognor]

Point was about exclusively in general not about a specific company and you're pretty wrong here.

You think Capcom did SF5 for free? (IIRC Capcom confirmed it wouldn't have been made without Sony support) and why would SquareEnix commit to FF7R for nothing exactly? Of course the deal would help ensure they can budget development costs and mitigate the risk involved.

It's pretty dumb and naïve take.

No one believes that Street Fighter 5 wouldn't have happened without Sony. That's complete bullshit. Street Fighter 4 sold over 9 million and we're to believe the sequel wouldn't have happened without Sony? It's complete nonsense.

Sony wrote SE a check for exclusivity. That's not for the development costs. SE developed it. Not Sony. Sony did not bankroll their development team.

You're pretty naive if you think neither of these games would have happened without Sony.

 

[adamsapple]

I dont take his takes serious anymore.

I'm surprised you're even able to stomach through the massively long rant posts in the first place, I check out and move onto the next post lol

Lol, cut the crap dude…ask MS why they needed to moneyhat STALKER 2 for instance? I bet you will say “the game is not that big of a deal”….bla bla bla bla.

STALKER 2 is a confirmed timed exclusive with the publisher confirming a six month window, MS is not continuing to moneyhat it away from other consoles like FFVII, again you can tell which of the two scenarios is 'worse' for the gamers here lol

And sure, i can see why people were pissed when they heard that Starfield was not coming on PS5 anymore, because this game would’ve come to PS5. For FF, it was never in development for Xbox. At this point, MS with 2 major publishers and some other random studios that also developed PS games.

Sony was in the process of moneyhatting Starfield to be a 1 year exclusive ala Deathloop and Ghostwire before the MS acquisition took center stage.

So, again, ask yourself, which publisher has the longer track record of paying to keep games off of other consoles from multi-platform publishers.

I Don't understand how some still dare to complain. Maybe just resign yourself to the fact that Japan and Xbox will not be a match. Maybe it is time for Sony to acquire Square….

The last line is the cherry on top of a ironic cake after the multiple posts complaining about Bethesda's acquisition

 

[dcmk7]

No one believes that Street Fighter 5 wouldn't have happened without Sony. That's complete bullshit

Except all the articles out there about the partnership and the quotes. Ok.

Sony wrote SE a check for exclusivity. That's not for the development costs. SE developed it.

Of course SE developed it. Where have I said otherwise.. do you know what you're even arguing about?

SE signed away a big exclusivity deal for FF7R but didn't use any of the cash they received for the titles actual development? A huge project, huge expectations and big costs involved. Sounds a bit far fetched to suggest otherwise and like I said previously very naïve.

Only have to look at SF5 and Capcom, the risk mitigation from the financial agreement ensured or rather helped the project go ahead.

As a gamer would rather have a game released than something never making it into full production because of the costs involved.

 

[adamsapple]

Point was about exclusively in general not about a specific company and you're pretty wrong here.

You think Capcom did SF5 for free? (IIRC Capcom confirmed it wouldn't have been made without Sony support) and why would SquareEnix commit to FF7R for nothing exactly? Of course the deal would help ensure they can budget development costs and mitigate the risk involved.

It's pretty dumb and naïve take.

They didn't say it wouldn't be possible, but a vague illusion about development purpose, which can be anything. That's not really any different from when Phil Spencer says they pay developers for development when putting games on GP day 1.

"We’re not talking about how we’re handling post-launch content, but I can say the relationship with Sony does open doors for things we haven’t been able to do in the past," the representative said. "The relationship serves a gameplay and development purpose, and not just a marketing value."

"One comment we see a lot is that something like a Super Street Fighter 5 is going to come out on Xbox," said the representative. "But the reality is that this is a real partnership. We are console exclusive for this franchise for this numbered run."

 

[cireza]

Of course the deal would help ensure they can budget development costs and mitigate the risk involved.

Mitigate risks of third party series that have been around for more than 30 years
Thank you Sony !

 

[Chukhopops]

You call that cheerleading lol.

And acquiring small studios that for the most part that they already work with is nothing like spending $80bn on massive publishers, hoping that MS buys half the game industry. Typical Xboy though - 'worries' about Apple and Google coming in and buying major publishers, but celebrates when MS does it lol

Not sure where you saw I was worried about Apple/Google. I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of saying Sony will buy Remedy (a studio which made multiple MS exclusives) and then using the « Sony only buys studios they work with » argument.

I know this has been discussed and mentioned ad nauseam on this board, but surely you see the difference here.

What was the last Housemarque game on Xbox? What was the last Bluepoint game on Xbox? These are both tight relationships fostered by Sony financing their ideas. Sorta like making a long term dating relationship a marriage.

Now ... lets look at Bethesda. A long history of multi platform publishing. From what I've seen of stats, Skyrim sold more on PS platforms than Xbox. Now I can't say that with certainty, but the short amount of research I tried to do pointed in that direction. I have purchased Skyrim three times. Once on Xbox, PS, and the latest was the Switch version. I won't purchase a single copy of StarField, because I don't have to. MS is giving it to me "for free" on Xbox, and I just won't have the option on PS5 and Switch. And neither will tens of millions of gamers who will now have that option removed from them. And that goes for all future Bethesda/Zenimax games most likely. I mean that includes Doom of all things. The idea of Doom being an Xbox exclusive is an absurd concept knowing it's history. This is MS basically trying to burn down the industry and keep it for itself. People are worried Activision is next, despite their publicly stated commitment. I couldn't care less because I think Activision stuff is bad but hey, I know CoD is massively popular.

You don't see the difference between those things? You don't see the difference between Housemarque, Bluepoint, Haven (which hasn't even released a game!), Firesprite and .... Zenimax and Activision? Please be honest here. Both with yourself and others.

Also this could be my interpretation (though this seems to be how it comes across to me) but look at the difference in what makes each platform specific fanbase excited. The Sony people seem happy they will continue to get good games from those small houses. These are games that were never on the Xbox and never would be. They needed support from Sony to exist. The Xbox people seem happy Sony (curiously not Nintendo) people won't get StarField and potentially CoD anymore. That's what makes them happy. These people are giant pieces of to think this way. Again, none of that affects me because I have all of it, but I am sad for people who have games removed from their potential libraries because MS can't seemingly foster a studio from the ground up if their company depended on it, so they have to go spend nearly 100 billion dollars to essentially shrink the size of the industry in their favor.

I have a Hummer, you have a scooter. We both drive through a pedestrian area. Sure, I kill more people because I have more efficient means… but our intent is the exact same.

You think Sony wouldn’t have bought AB if they could? And that they wouldn’t have made Starfield exclusive if they had bought Bethesda? Because they want to avoid industry consolidation? You don’t believe that and you know it.

 

[Lognor]

Except all the articles out there about the partnership and the quotes. Ok.


Of course SE developed it. Where have I said otherwise.. do you know what you're even arguing about?

SE signed away a big exclusivity deal for FF7R but didn't use any of the cash they received for the titles actual development? A huge development project, huge expectations and they didn't use the funds to mitigate risk and for budgeting? Sounds a bit far fetched and like I said previously very naïve.

You clearly do not know how game development works. Sony paid for exclusivity. That money lined SE's pockets. It did not go into the actual development costs. Budgeting was done well before that. Exclusivity came much later and was NOT used for development costs.

Show me these articles that state that SF5, the sequel to a highly successful game, would not exist without Sony. Again, that is a ridiculous statement. And if you truly believe that you are extremely naive.

 

[Snake29]

I'm surprised you're even able to stomach through the massively long rant posts in the first place, I check out and move onto the next post lol




STALKER 2 is a confirmed timed exclusive with the publisher confirming a six month window, MS is not continuing to moneyhat it away from other consoles like FFVII, again you can tell which of the two scenarios is 'worse' for the gamers here lol



Sony was in the process of moneyhatting Starfield to be a 1 year exclusive ala Deathloop and Ghostwire before the MS acquisition took center stage.

So, again, ask yourself, which publisher has the longer track record of paying to keep games off of other consoles from multi-platform publishers.




The last line is the cherry on top of a ironic cake after the multiple posts complaining about Bethesda's acquisition

"Keeping off", you mean playable after a year.

 

[adamsapple]

"Keeping off", you mean playable after a year.

Yeah, just like FFVII was supposed to be before the continued re-releases and continued money hats.

If you really think Sony wouldn't have exercised options to keep increasing the exclusivity for Deathloop, Ghostwire and even Starfield had Bethesda not been bought, you're just being naive.

 

[dcmk7]

You clearly do not know how game development works. Sony paid for exclusivity. That money lined SE's pockets. It did not go into the actual development costs. Budgeting was done well before that. Exclusivity came much later and was NOT used for development costs.

Show me these articles that state that SF5, the sequel to a highly successful game, would not exist without Sony. Again, that is a ridiculous statement. And if you truly believe that you are extremely naive.

Damn dude.. really doubling down with this bizarre take.. a hugely expensive title doesn't get green lit without some assurances. A big Sony cheque certainly helps cover those costs whilst reducing risk. It should be a no brainer since its basic stuff.. but evidently not.

Not sure what you're struggling with personally but looking at your post history I think I'm starting to realise.

 

[Lognor]

Damn dude.. really doubling down with this bizarre take.. a hugely expensive title doesn't get green lit without some assurances. A big Sony cheque certainly helps cover the costs. No brainer.

Without assurances? And your examples are Street Fighter 5 and FFVII Remake? LOL. Two huge games that were going to be made with or without Sony's money. If that's the case and you need assurances, why isn't EVERY third party game a (timed) exclusive? You make no sense. Why wasn't Elden Ring exclusive? Didn't Bandai Namco need a assurances for a huge AAA game like Elden Ring? How did they manage not to go exclusive?!

Damn, you are naive.

 

[anothertech]

What a thread lolol

A I'll say is if you haven't played remake by now, I am truly sorry for you. Especially for fans of the original.

The remake, while not a replacement, is everything I hoped it would be.

Truly hope it makes it to Xbox one day so more people can enjoy this masterpiece.

It's obvious the trolls that dismiss it were never going to play it anyways. Those guys can fuck right off.

 

[Nydius]

because MS can't seemingly foster a studio from the ground up if their company depended on it

Whatever else people might think of Dr Bass' post, this part is painfully accurate.

With exception to Turn 10, Microsoft has bungled every studio they've 'built' or bought. The Coalition went through management drama during the development of Gears 5, 343 Industries is a dumpster fire that is compounded by Microsoft's insistence on [over]using contract labor, The Initiative is currently falling apart. They bungled FASA Studios, Lionhead Studios, and Rare. The fact that Rare was able to rebound with Sea of Thieves after effectively being nothing more than Microsoft's Xbox 360 UI/UX and Kinect studio is nothing short of miraculous. It's too early to say what will become of Playground Games; If their Fable reboot project flops, they'll likely forever be nothing more than the Forza Horizon studio.

This is why I treat the Microsoft acquisition of ActiBliz with skepticism. Too many people seem to think Microsoft is going to magically "right the ship" over at ActiBliz but Microsoft has a horrid track record of managing the studios they buy, dating all the way back to the original Xbox.

 

[Banjo64]

Damn dude.. really doubling down with this bizarre take.. a hugely expensive title doesn't get green lit without some assurances. A big Sony cheque certainly helps cover those costs whilst reducing risk. It should be a no brainer since its basic stuff.. but evidently not.

Not sure what you're struggling with personally but looking at your post history I think I'm starting to realise.

SE couldn’t green light a FF game without the financial assurance from Sony? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[BreakOut]

I don’t think it’ll happen. If it does release it ain’t gonna be until 2nd part releases. Push it out with the second part to pump sales maybe.

 

[Snake29]

Yeah, just like FFVII was supposed to be before the continued re-releases and continued money hats.

If you really think Sony wouldn't have exercised options to keep increasing the exclusivity for Deathloop, Ghostwire and even Starfield had Bethesda not been bought, you're just being naive.

FF7 remake is on pc. Who said it was coming to Xbox anyway?

 

[kingfey]

Whatever else people might think of Dr Bass' post, this part is painfully accurate.

With exception to Turn 10, Microsoft has bungled every studio they've 'built' or bought. The Coalition went through management drama during the development of Gears 5, 343 Industries is a dumpster fire that is compounded by Microsoft's insistence on [over]using contract labor, The Initiative is currently falling apart. They bungled FASA Studios, Lionhead Studios, and Rare. The fact that Rare was able to rebound with Sea of Thieves after effectively being nothing more than Microsoft's Xbox 360 UI/UX and Kinect studio is nothing short of miraculous. It's too early to say what will become of Playground Games; If their Fable reboot project flops, they'll likely forever be nothing more than the Forza Horizon studio.

This is why I treat the Microsoft acquisition of ActiBliz with skepticism. Too many people seem to think Microsoft is going to magically "right the ship" over at ActiBliz but Microsoft has a horrid track record of managing the studios they buy, dating all the way back to the original Xbox.

MS is shit in term of managing their studio's. And that stems from their hands off approach policy.
If that policy didn't exist, MS studios would have different than what they are now.
MS needs to ditch this stupid policy. It doesn't do them any favor at all.

 

[kingfey]

FF7 remake is on pc. Who said it was coming to Xbox anyway?

Its on epic, not on steam.
Square is just dickheads, who goes after money.

 

[adamsapple]

FF7 remake is on pc. Who said it was coming to Xbox anyway?

Of course no one said, but they had a pretty boiled plate "won't release on any other platform until 12 months" at the launch trailers, but after 12 months they released the Intergrade version and added more time to the "won't release on any other platform until x months".

Shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see what's happening here. Especially seeing that even the PC version is EGS exclusive.

 

[Captain Toad]

No one believes that Street Fighter 5 wouldn't have happened without Sony. That's complete bullshit. Street Fighter 4 sold over 9 million and we're to believe the sequel wouldn't have happened without Sony? It's complete nonsense.

Sony wrote SE a check for exclusivity. That's not for the development costs. SE developed it. Not Sony. Sony did not bankroll their development team.

You're pretty naive if you think neither of these games would have happened without Sony.

You're actually pretty wrong about almost everything you just said here.

 

[jonnyp]

Xbox gamers aren't missing much IMHO.