Microsoft shouldn't have forced Bethesda to make Starfield Exclusive

One of the most highly anticipated games of the year would definitely have to be Starfield. The game has been in development for at least five years, and it will be the first new intellectual property from Bethesda in 25 years.

[Michiel1989]

after spending 7 billion and having a sever lack of (good) exclusives they shouldn't make it exclusive? I'm not saying that I'm happy with it being exclusive, but business wise it makes no sense to release it on playstation.

[GhostScholar]

Agreed

[SullysCigar]

Eh? PlayStation has a far bigger install base. Plus they have a better games attach rate than Xbox. Both of these equate to FAR more sales on PS5 than on series XS, which is why it would make sense to release on PlayStation - to see a better return on investment.

Timed exclusivity would give them pull to their platform for anyone that bothered. Outright exclusivity hurts sales and therefore profit. Bigly.

[ken2813]

I think Bethesda was having trouble with Series S/X parity issues so they struck an exclusive deal with Sony for Deathloop and Ghostwire. Sony would have gotten the exclusivity deal for Starfield because of development issues if M$ haven’t acquired ZeniMax.

[Lightning77]

The same sales and revenue streams that MS is trying to chip away at? If every game was "oh it needs to be on PS then what would be the point of owning anything if it needs to go to PS for sells. Counter productive Xbox wouldn't grow its platform that way.

[Michiel1989]

@sully no it wouldn't, a big bethesda game is definitely a reason for them to get into the xbox eco system, which is what they want. The potential revenue from that is infinitely higher than from selling it on playstation. The best example is probably f2p mobile games, ever wondered why they all have either 1 cent or 1 dollar offers for new players? They want them into their ecosystem and make them into paying players and as you can see from mobile games revenue, it works like a charm.

[Pocahontas]

@Michiel1989 Big Bethesda game will not move as much as you think. The revenue of this even if true would not be more than selling on the number one console. Fact. It would probably triple the sales. This literally no math/logic to back up your asinine theory. Bethesda is in a way worse position now than ever before. Just like Xbox, Bethesda will become worse over time I can promise you that. Proof is all acquired devs up to this point.

[darthv72]

...a bigger install base is no guarantee it will appeal to every man woman and child on that platform. Not at the $70 asking price. which is why gamepass is best for these situations. Letting you play and decide if its worth investing in some sort of ownership of said game as a result.

Being in gamepass does mean every user is able to try it for themselves. That IS a guaranteed end result because there is no additional out of pocket expense to be had. Even to those who may not find it appealing initially will likely end up trying it just to satisfy their curiosity. It really is the Netflix effect. word of mouth makes people curious what the fuss is about surrounding a certain show or movie that is only on Netflix... so then people check it out for themselves. Even if they dont like it, it still counts towards that overall number of people who engaged with it.

[Gamer75]

So you don't want Xbox to have any exclusives but are fine with PS having them ?

[Julion0715]

Would you say the same for Spider-Man or god of war?

[-Foxtrot]

It defeats the point of Microsoft saying they’d run semi-independently

So if Bethesda wanted it then it should have been discussed. Going off reports they’d seemed blind sighted because there’s MS running around saying something like COD would still be multiplatform but they are going on how Starfield is an exclusive.

[darksky]

Bethesda was not $7B.

[Christopher]

You're cutting out 65% of your console profits because you spent billions on a studio with a game that will be played the most on PC via Steam with mods.

Sound business decision.

[Asplundh]

Theyre not going to shift a percentage of that 65% there way without giving people a reason to invest in their system.

[Christopher]

Starfield isn't the one to shift console adoption, that's CoD, Fortnite, and GTA. Starfield is primarily a long-term PC market game. It's doesn't have GaaS appeal for GamePass so if anyone shifts for that game it will likely be to buy it and not necessarily subscribe. But that shift will be extremely small compared to your battle pass shooter games.

[4Sh0w]

65%???

Where did you get that #? Each iteration sells a bit different but the last game F76 which didn't sell well on any platform considering all its issues did about 44% on Xbox & pc combined so that leaves 56% on ps.

And yes you do spend billions on a studio and still keep the games exclusive (you don't have to keep them all) because it's a long term strategy of building a attractive portfolio of games so you can leverage your platform to increase your install and that install base spends MORE money within your ecosystem. Simply put if the idea is that you're losing money only because your exclusive is not on your competitors platform then really you should just be a 3rd party pub/dev, all Sony exclusive would make more if they were on Xbox & pc too, not 54% more but even 44% more is 8, 9 million more than 5 million sold....thats alot of money Sony losing.

Also the Fallout games sold 2nd best on Xbox so I dont know that it will be played most on Steam, yes the mod community heavily supports Bethesda games but they are a smaller group in relation total Xbox players of Bethesda games. Now don't be shocked but Sarfield will be a huge hit on Gamepass with tons of players day 1.

[FyBy]

Its interesting. Because Phil told us, that it makes definitely sense to release games also on PS for:
1)more gamers can play them
2)they can sell millions of copies on Playstation

So it seems Phil is really desperate, that they need to try to weaken playstation brand.

[Christopher]

He says a lot of things.

* Our goal isn't to take games away from others
* We don't believe in third party exclusives
* We want GamePass on all platforms
* Starfield is our first big game to push GamePass subs
* We obviously can't ignore the PlayStation user base

[Lightning77]

Phil never said that at all. I can't stop you from making things up though I guess.

Didn't know competing is desperation, that's interesting.

[raWfodog]

I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate to the second part of your comment and say that it make's perfect business sense to release the game on PS as it has a much higher gamerbase than Xbox at the moment. Additionally, all PS users would need to purchase the full game in order to play it, and that would go a long way towards offsetting the amount of revenue they are giving up (losing) by having the same game available on Day 1 on GP.

But we know that this is not their thinking because their primary goal is to increase GP subscriptions above all else. Bottom line, it's their title and they can do want they want with it.

[ThinkThink]

You nailed it, the goal for starfield isn't to offset any lost revenue though. If it was, I would completely agree with you. The goal of starfield is to make the xbox and pc ecosystem more attractive and push subscriptions. If starfield doesn't drive increased subscriptions to gamepass, then it was a failure, no doubt.

[ChasterMies]

Business wise, how many consoles does Microsoft have to move in order to make up for lost sales on PS5? Not just that, but the Bethesda brand itself is hurting from this, and its value in moving consoles is further diminished. And by that I mean gamers are spiteful and prone to review bombing.

[Lightning77]

How much would Pokemon and Bayonetta would sell if it was on PS and Xbox? How much would Horizon and Spiderman sell it was Xbox or a Switch Version?

The potential for more is always there when talking multiplat. But Sony and Nintendo want to grow their brand. Like MS wants to grow there's. All I'm seeing is a bunch of whining and entitlement posts around here.

[RupeeHoarder]

I agree. Microsoft needs SOME reason for people to buy the console or gain subscribers. They are sinking fast. Exclusive was the right move for them.

[Muigi]

Business wise it would be way more profitable to make it multiplat especially with Xbox having lost the console war…

[zarbor]

Nevermind that Sony was going to make it exclusive to the Playstation. Guess this clown who wrote the article and a several of the commentors below wouldn't have a problem if that ended up happening. The ignorance in the community is beyond appalling. I don't have a Series X nor S and would love to have seen it on my PS5 as well. However, I agree with you that its just dumb business sense for MS to make it multiplatform,.....at least initially.

[rakentaja]

It makes only sense to keep it exclusive to attract people to Xbox. If it also came to Playstation, it would make more money as a one-time release, but Xbox as a platform would still be left behind, which is not good at all in the long term. They want to sell you Xbox, not more copies.

[PapaBop]

Well business wise, it'd probably go a long to convince the courts about their intentions with Activision Blizzard. They'll talk a load of bollocks as they always do but Starfield speaks louder than their hollow words.

[ModsDoBetter]

Yeah, very dumb take imo.
"Forced" as if they had a gun to their head, its business, Microsoft own Bethesday, let's not be dense here.

[Abear21]

Eh, I was destined to own all the plastic boxes this Gen anyways, just a matter of time—I just hope the game turns out better for being exclusive. Bethesda having to get that beast running on PlayStation hardware too would have taken another 6 months to complete and/or take away some polish, two things any gamer anticipating Starfield doesn’t want.

[Sonic1881]

Microsoft paid for it So they have the right to do whatever they want especially for 7 Billion

[Eonjay]

Actually no. Sony bought bungie for 3 Billion but is still multiplat. Microsoft could have done that with Bethesda as well.

[Knightofelemia]

When Sony bought Bungie there was an article on here that said Sony says things will be kept as is. And that Bungie will continue to do their own thing. Now Sony can do a U turn on that statement and have Bungie working on other things.

[Lightning77]

Due to a handshake agreement to remain multiplat. Plus Bungie makes LS games they want their game every where. Bethesda largely makes single player games.

[ThinkThink]

Sony had to agree that all future bungie releases would be multiplat as part of the sale. I wonder if Bethesda even tried that. Maybe we'll find out with all these emails this week.

[4Sh0w]

You actaully think Sony sat down with Bungie and offered to buy them on the condition that they remain multiplat, lmfao, Nope.

Bungie--->requested that as part of the deal & well since Sonys is desperately seeking to have in house Live service game talent that Microsoft can't take away, Sony cut the 3.6bil check.

[anast]

They need to get more people on GamePass. The game is janky though, but they still might get a few 100k subs from it.

[Pickledpepper]

@anast
Nice try pmsl

[anast]

I don't understand your comment.

[RaiderNation]

In terms of the potential revenue loss, I agree. However, any attempt to somehow shame MS for not making it available on PS5 because "it's not right" is silly. MS spent a lot of money on Zenimax, it's completely at their discretion as to what they do and do not make available to their competition.

[Christopher]

Pretty much. We can have our opinions on whether it's a good business plan, but we need to understand that it's Microsoft's decision and they paid for the right to that decision. And that decision isn't going to destroy the industry, just upset some gamers for a little while until the next thing comes out.

[raWfodog]

Exactly this. I also wish the game was going to be available for PS, but MS has every right to decide where their titles will release. I'm sure there are some Xbox users who wish some of the PS exclusives would have come to their system as well. Many of us may not feel it was a smart business decision for MS to keep Starfield exclusive. But it is their IP, and they have every right to do what they want with it. Also, I honestly doubt the loss of multiplatform revenue will even be a big issue for them as they are primarily focused on increasing GP subs anyway.

[Crows90]

Now that its purchased they can do what they want. Gamers dont need to like it. Purchasing zenimax was the problem to start with. Nothing to do now but see how things unfold. Starfield will be the least purchased console game in history of Bethesda.

[Hereandthere]

The way it's looking, maybe its a good thing, old game engine from the ps2 era, 1296p in open space with nothing happening according to digital foundry, 30fps. looks to be a 6/10 game at best.

[z2g]

xBoX hAs No eXcLuSiVe GaMeS!
**Xbox buys studios to have more first party content**
xBoX sHoUldN't mAkE tHe GaMeS ExClUsiVe"

[King_Noctis]

It is always like this in this place.

[Crows90]

It was actually

Xbox doesnt make new games.
Xbox looks at studios and continues to do the same games but for less gamers!

[SovereignSnaKe]

Sony shouldn't have forced Square to make Final Fantasy XVI exclusive.

[BehindTheRows]

Yeh, Sony forced Square what to do with their own property...

Quit talking nonsense.

[Crows90]

Square went around looking for deals from both xbox and sony.
They took sonys offer.

[ModsDoBetter]

Enter: the double standard.

[northpaws]

Exclusives are two side blades. It makes your platform stronger because your platform has games that gamers cannot play anywhere else, but it also make franchises less well known if they don't gain traction.

PS gamers who enjoyed Bethesda RPGs will either getting an XBox or PC to play them, or they might just skip them from now on and play RPGs from other studios instead.

At the end of the day, if the developer has confidence that they have produced an amazing game and it can attract people to switch platforms just to play it, by all mean make it an exclusive, just it won't be easy, it takes a long time to build a household name.

[IamFrasierCrane]

Microsoft owns Bethesda. They bought them to bolster their exclusive lineup and are doing just that.

[jznrpg]

It changed nothing for Xbox just took games away from others.

[ModsDoBetter]

Oh so you're from the future?

How can gou say it "changed nothing" when the game in question isn't even out yet?

[Elda]

I own all 3 current consoles with PS being my first platform of choice. If I solely owned a PS console I personally wouldn't be bothered by Starfield being exclusive to XB had it only been a 3rd party exclusive & not MS buying the 3rd party/multi-plat publisher Bethesda. All console platforms have their 2nd & 3rd party exclusives without owning the studio/developer/publishers & it's ok.

[ModsDoBetter]

A few people tout "competition is good" yet slam MS for Starfield and criticise through gameplay claiming they're not bothered about the game yet its telling that you see the same names over and over again on every Starfield article.

[Knightofelemia]

Microsoft owns Bethesda they have a right to keep this game as an exclusive.

[ModsDoBetter]

It's just as simple as that.

[XBManiac]

Not selling on PlayStation is losing big money... well... money seems to be no problem for MS.

[Petebloodyonion]

I agree with the sentiment and always mentioned how removing a game or preventing a game from being played on another platform does NOT help the art form (I'm pretty sure that any artist would want their piece to be enjoyed by more and more) nor does it make the enjoyment better by not being played by others (except for some insecure ppl who need validation that the game is probably good due to being exclusive).

Still, there's also the sad truth that games cost money to make and support or that removing some sku it helps with optimization and development.
So first, let's see if it's true that Starfield is the least bugged Bethesda game and let's hope a PS5 version comes down the lane.

[ocelot07]

Making elder scrolls and fallout exclusive I don't agree with. Same way I wouldn't agree with Sony making say Sunset Overdrive 2 or Destiny 3 exclusive.

However, Starfield has no history it's a new IP. Yes sure before Microsoft bought Bethesda it was in development for PS5. But it didn't have any sort of gameplay footage or anything. So I can't fault Microsoft for not releasing it on PS5.

[mcstorm]

The issue is Microsoft need exclusives on GP and for Xbox and a new IP is a good way to start this.

The Beth and AV deals are the long term plans for Microsoft to give gamers a reason to game on their platform (Xbox, pc, GP, Cloud gaming) adding it's games into all other services to is a plus for Microsoft. But this game and others need keeping off the Playstation unless sony allows game pass.

As you said this game is a new IP. I feel games as big as COD need to stay multi platform because of how big they are. I would say Doom would be on this list to.

Definitely going to be intresting to see how Microsoft plays alot of this over the next few years but Microsoft needs some big guns and after putting money into studies it's time for them to deliver on the games to bring players to it's platforms one way or another. Especially going into another generation.

[Crows90]

Starting with new games. Thats what they need done.
Redfall was a joke. Lets see what other big game releases soon and judge then on their ability to manage these beloved studios.

[jznrpg]

I don’t care what MS has bought I am done with them as a platform. I won’t ever give Xbox another dime in any form no whatever they offer they are horrible for gaming. PC , mobile whatever I won’t buy anything MS as they want to kill of consoles altogether

[Lightning77]

What are you mad about exactly?

[ModsDoBetter]

Seems they're mad about a company releasing games that they own exclusively on their console. Truly baffling behaviour.

[slayernz]

Meh, the more I see of this game the more I think it doesn't even look that great, there's nothing that jumps out as wow I need to play this. Lots of hype but reckon it'll be average at best

[HyperMoused]

Sony does this all the time, why is it a problem when MS do it, especially when everyone complains there are no games

[ModsDoBetter]

They want their cake and eat it. They simply can't make it make sense.

[ken2813]

Sony pay for timed exclusivity Microsoft buy publishers. Think about this, if Microsoft haven’t bought Bethesda then they would have only had 2 exclusive games(halo and FH5) this gen so far and this gen halfway over.

[HyperMoused]

They are not all timed, the games the from studios Sony own dont come to Xbox and then they buy timed exclusives again after that, MS owns Bethesda, its making a game from a studio it owns not be on PS. I dont see a difference

[REDDURT]

The assumption that it will be good is the problem. Ms can lose all they money they like.

[ghostrider32]

After spending billions, it wouldn't be a wise decision to put the game on Playstation. The biggest complaint about Xbox, is lack of exclusives and consistency. Don't get mad, when they start doing something about it.

[MEGANE]

Am glad they did, cuz it is living proof of what MS will do with all Activision upcoming games.

[Kekewei]

As ps gamer, I am OK with that, and with all kinds of exclusives. I believe exclusive is good for developers and gamers, as long as they don't grab giants like gta to wipe out the competition.

[Soulsborne]

As if people are running out to purchase an xbox for this or any other M$ exclusive.... will be rented by the majority of players regardless.

[moomoo319]

MS gotta make that $7 billion back cuz

[Terry_B]

Seems it won't be very good anyway..so whatever.

[XBManiac]

It is a bet... if Microsoft can recover the invest... they will win. But... It seems that it'd have been easier with PlayStation selling... ¿60% of the total?

[Redgrave]

Satya "exclusives are bad and I have no love for that world" Nadella, being fine with this and ES6 and everything else because it's under his umbrella, contradicting his statements yesterday

[Redgrave]

To further clarify, it makes financial sense for them to make it exclusive following their acquisition of Bethesda.

I am just poking fun at the irony of that statement in the wake of this, is all.

[Meti]

If PS4 and Nintendo releases all their games on all consoles and PC then ok.

[Meti]

Its cause of the players that like to pick parties instead of inviting everyone cause of selfish reasons that exclusivity exists. I dont know why you would want exclussives. Its not like you as a player own an exlussive item thats only yours. I dont get it, everyone shouls have the oportunity to enyoy a game, even those that can afford more than 1 console.
Conosles are getting alot more expensive. Conole developers shpuld instead compete in making better specs to compete.

All in all i think players should grow up, even the older generation or get a life.

[OWCY]

Until playststion let xbox have spiderman and planetside, then we can't keep defending playststion exclusives and moaning about xbox ones

[Redgrave]

We aren't bemoaning the concept of exclusives, we are bemoaning the concept of buying them as opposed to making them themselves.

Sony is often defended because they are known for their powerful exclusive repertoire. MS is often criticized because they say one thing and do another, with this very game being an example of that.

Playstation has five generations worth of exclusive experience, Microsoft has two. That is because for whatever reason, starting with the Xbox One, they shifted their focus and slowly started putting out less and less proper exclusives.

Expanding exclusives via buyout and earning your place through your own handmade quality are two very different things, and two things that should be easily distinguishable but aren't.