Xbox Spreading Exclusives Around Is Great For Gamers and Microsoft

Microsoft has started licensing out exclusive titles, which could be the start of an exciting new non-exclusive era in gaming.

Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Jin_Sakai30d ago (Edited 30d ago )

“ which could be the start of an exciting new non-exclusive era in gaming.”

Exciting? If we didn’t have “exclusives” games such as God of War, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Uncharted, Zelda, Mario, wouldn’t exist. They also give reason to purchase one platform over the latter.

In Microsoft’s case they don’t have much to lose with Xbox at this point so if they want to hand out their exclusives so be it.

Jin_Sakai30d ago (Edited 30d ago )

Edit: I see the title was changed after I posted my comment.

30d ago
Welshy30d ago (Edited 30d ago )

Exactly. Especially the US media outlets are forging this narrative that MS is "pushing the industry forward" as if from the kindness of their hearts.

Where was their big push to spread their exclusives to other platform for the bulk of last gen when they were doing well? It's funny how suddenly being firmly in last place has inspired them to revolutionize the industry.

Fanboys and media can try to spin it all day long, but it's nothing to do with them suddenly having a conscience for the consumer, selling their games on other platforms is a necessity for the survival of their gaming division since they're competitions hardware outsell them at an embarrassing rate.

Atom66630d ago

What about those of us who don't care about the reasons for their changes or a trillion-dollar corporation's profit margins?

Let them get embarrassed. I'm reaping the benefits of their missteps. Even after getting kicked in the mouth this gen, they've still made impressive revenue. Hell, Xbox somehow posted higher revenue than all of Nintendo last year. Their "survival" really shouldn't be a concern for even the most diehard of fans or critics. Somehow poor MS will be OK.

People confuse praising their current moves with absolving them of their past. We get it. They were against things like crossplay in the past. They would never be open to putting games on other systems in the past. Who cares? They're doing it now, it's good for my wallet and my entertainment, it's good for many others like me, and it doesn't mean you can't still be upset about what they've done in the past.

They probably wouldn't be doing 1/2 of these moves had they been more successful this gen. Good. If they think consumer-friendly policy changes will help them, I'm not going to stop them.

Welshy30d ago (Edited 30d ago )

I agree with you, as a consumer it's great in the short term, as I said in my comment I'm more annoyed by the suggestion that they're willful changes and that they're suddenly these great forward thinking pioneers as opposed to a corporation trying to find new revenue streams where old ones collapsed.

I don't want every company to go down this road though, the need to make great exclusives to sell your system has brought us some of best games ever, I'd hate essentially a 3rd party future where every system plays every game.

On the surface it sounds good, but when you dig a bit deeper it's not. If I buy an Xbox and Halo (which is only on the Xbox), I now have an investment in that ecosystem, MS in turn will take that money and put into the next big title etc. Meanwhile the same thing is happening at playstation, you buy a Ps4 and TLOU, Sony knows it's competitors are building their next big titles so they invest your money into making something they hope is better than their rivals because you can't have that great Xbox game and need to try and top it to make your ecosystem more attractive.

By keeping the money focused into separate ecosystems that do what they do well, it creates a diverse group of systems all doing different things, always trying to better each other so we constantly get better and more varied games.

In one big homogenous platform, that incentive to compete and innovate is gone and games run the risk of being a big bland landscape where nothing really stands out and noone has incentive to differentiate.

rainslacker29d ago (Edited 29d ago )

Kind of ironic that last gen, MS took it's games off PC for the sole purpose of pushing the console hardware. There was some furor about it from the PC community for a bit, then they just moved on, and I wouldn't say that MS has been welcomed back with open arms. I wouldn't say they've been ostracized by the PC gamer either, but PC gamers aren't acting like MS is some sort of Godsend. That's mostly the xbox fan boys who are speaking on behalf of the PC gamers trying to make it seem like MS is doing this huge thing for PC gaming, when MS games are really a drop in the bucket for what's available.

It's hard to know if it was a huge incentive to buy the hardware, as with the Xbox 360 they did a lot of things right, even if not everything was perfect, but I'm sure for those that were invested in the games themselves, it may have been enough to push them to buy a console.

As it is now, one doesn't have to consider a Xbox if they are a PC gamer. That in itself isn't really a bad thing for the consumer, or for MS, as it gives options which benefit both. The console gamer really loses nothing....except the fee to play online I guess. I think MS may actually lose more on the deal if people don't buy a console, as they aren't making all those licensing fees for games sold to the console gamer, but whatever that percentage is is probably made up with the additional sales of PC copies. Otherwise, MS wouldn't be doing what they're doing now. It's a numbers game in this case, but MS knows that most people only buy a few games a year.

rainslacker29d ago


While I think you are 100% right, I think ignoring history with MS is a very bad thing to do. MS is nothing if not fickle in how it approaches markets. During the OGXbox days, they were all about games on a windows platform, which is what the current plan is. Then in the 360 days, it was all about making the hardware a thing....mostly to make headway in the space against Sony, to which they had some luck with Sony's delay to release, as well as a cheaper system to purchase, which measured itself up just fine against the competition. Nintendo was a non-factor in the power race last gen, although they actually did win the gen due to making a new market within the console space.

While MS will probably keep it's current tract for a while, as it lines up with what they're trying to do with their products on a larger scale, if MS starts to see things change, then all of a sudden, all the good they have now, could become something wildly different. This whole streaming thing for instance. If they want to push that service, wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that putting games there exclusive day one, or at least incentivizing the play of the games there over other platforms, doing what they did in the 360 days when they took their games off PC? Effectively removing Epic's largest fan base from the equation unless that fan base brought a console?

You are right. For now, it's actually good for the consumer. Overall, what they're doing I really have no issue with. My only issue with MS for the time being is the way they handled this generation, and their constant talk as if they weren't terrible. But never should one believe that MS will always have the consumer interest in mind. MS is as bad as EA when it comes to finding ways to fleece the customer or monetizing products. They have decades of annoying customers with their policies, or how they realease products. They've held back gaming with DX to push new versions of Windows.

MS has always, and will always, think of MS first, and while what they do may sometimes line up with the consumer's interest, it doesn't mean that they will always stay true to the consumer. It's not about just hating on them because they're MS, it's just the way the company has always been, and with them pushing towards service models, and the big push to always be on an upward trajectory in terms of revenues and profits, I don't see them changing their company ethos.

LordJamar29d ago

You don’t own or play one why do you care

Atom66629d ago


The walled garden of the console ecosystem has been very important to gaming. Your take on it is more of a "spin" fed to consumers, though.

3rd party is able to deliver across multiple platforms every day. Consoles today are, at best, mid range PCs with very little differences between PC, PS4, and Xbox. I'm not concerned with devs' ability to craft quality games just because they are on PC too, or if they lose out on royalties from selling less hardware.

Xbox made 10 billion last year with one decent 1st party game. I don't think a lack of funding is the concern. This isn't a Sega situation. Not only is Xbox doing OK financially, MS itself is firmly in the black. They'll be OK if they don't keep everything locked down to a closed system.

These guys all recognize that the console market has a ceiling. 360 and PS3 combined to sell about 170 million last gen. When this gen wraps up, PS4 and X1 will be close to that same number. That's why Sony too is looking outside of the console space. Even when they do, I don't expect Naughty Dog will suddenly stop making awesome content.


Absolutely. Trust no one, but take full advantage when you can. I've been jerked around by MS, Sony, and Nintendo at varying times for decades. If I held grudges, I'd never play any games. They're all out to make as much money as possible. I get it, and I've learned to take full advantage whenever I can.

One thing that makes me chuckle are those with the rose colored glasses looking at last gen. We were fleeced much more back then, but people act like we should all want to go back.

Buying into a gaming ecosystem is not a life-altering decision. It's consumer electronics. I'll spend my money where I think it is best for me to do so, but I'm not married to these corporations. When one stops giving me value, I'll go to another. When I see the kind of revenue they're bringing in, I don't feel too bad about being advantageous, either.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 29d ago
rainslacker29d ago (Edited 29d ago )

Yeah, but look at how exciting MS has made this generation with all those games they spread around. Good times.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 29d ago
Godmars29030d ago

More like they've been buying/bought studios with released and indev IPs that already had contractual obligations to competition systems. Rather than deal with added legal costs and negative rep involved, they're allowing those games to be on the Switch and PS4 while putting positive spin.

Poopmist30d ago

Especially with some of them being funded by fans with a promised PS4 release.

bluefox75530d ago

It's only great for MS because no one is buying their consoles.

CaptainTravel30d ago

Playing console games on the PC is not good for you as a consumer without the 30fps restrictions and other console hardware limitations along with playing online for free?

Godmars29030d ago (Edited 30d ago )


You don't seem to be talking as someone who doesn't give a damn about frame rates - unless they REALLY suck - or plays non-FPS - which has been both the Xbox's focus and major weakness.

"How is it bad for gamers?"

Its not good for gamers either since MS isn't being authentic in putting a select number of games on other system they didn't have full rights to and only would have made them look bad if they'd pulled them.

Atom66629d ago


You mean like Cuphead, which is in the thumbnail here?

Pretty safe bet that MS had some say in allowing the publishing of Ori and Cuphead on Switch. It's good for me, a gamer, because I already repurchased Cuphead for on-the-go on Switch, and will probably do the same with Ori. Good for those devs, too. Double the sales from me.

WTF does "authentic" refer to? Because they didn't buy out the publishing rights to Outer Worlds, Wasteland 3, and Psychonauts? Why should they? I'm sure they had to pay a little to let them be day one gamepass. I support that move, and it's good that those on other platforms get to enjoy the games they were looking forward to.

Everything has a price. They could have paid to keep those off of other systems, but it would have been a waste of money and would only hurt gamers. Who cares why they did it? It's the right move.

rainslacker29d ago

I've been playing games at 30fps longer than many people here have been alive. hell ,some consoles through the years didn't even achieve that. Never, in my entire life, has 30fps been a problem for me. Yes, 60fps is better. But if someone can't play a game at 30fps, then all I can think is that they haven't been gaming very long. I would agree with these arguments if framerate couldn't manage to remain at 30fps most of the time...and the occasional few frames per second dip is not typically a problem.

Atom66630d ago

How is it bad for gamers?

CaptainTravel30d ago (Edited 30d ago )

Exactly, instead it appears some would rather going into stealth mode and hit disagree without any reason. Likely because they have no debating skills and just don't like Microsoft.

King_Noctis30d ago

So them giving you choice to not buy their console and still able to play their games is a bad thing now? Why exactly?

Welshy30d ago

It's not a bad thing at all for gamers, it's just bad for Xbox hardware. The point he is make is that do you really think MS would be going down this road if the Xbone sold like the 360?

I didn't see them setting up a 3rd party rental platform to give everyone their games last gen when Xbox hardware was selling well.

ILostMyMind29d ago

I would agree with you if their games were on PS4. I would just say "f0ck Micro$of!".

King_Noctis29d ago


Bad or good for Xbox hardware, why should us as gamers care? We’re here to play game, not play hardware. Let MS worry about that, not us.


Not everything need to go to Sony and the PS4. The machine is already perfect like most people here think.

galmi30d ago

millions have my friend, maybe not as much as your most preferred console

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 29d ago
yarbie100030d ago

Microsoft is so brave, doing things never done before and being a leader. All praise Phil!!

>looks over at every major third party dev who already puts their games on all platforms....

HentaiElmo30d ago

@yarbie1000 Microsoft is so brave, doing things never done before and being a leader. All praise Phil!! Microsoft is so brave, doing things never done before and being a leader. All praise Phil!!

>looks over at every major third party dev who already puts their games on all platforms..../ S
There I fix it for you

King_Noctis30d ago (Edited 30d ago )

“looks over at every major third party dev who already puts their games on all platforms.”

Unless I’m wrong, are any of those third parties have their own console like MS?

rainslacker29d ago (Edited 29d ago )

Not sure about individual publishers, although Phillips had a gaming division when they made their console.
Sega did. They published Sonic games on the PC back in the day. Not all of them, but some of them. That was back in the Sega CD and early Saturn days. They were actually pretty good ports.

Nintendo allowed Zelda games to be published on another console a really long time ago, and they are active in doing mobile versions of Mario and what not. Sony had a PC publishing house for a while, but it was a different business than the PlayStation subsidiary. There wasn't much cross over from the PS division. NEC and Hudson released quite a few of their games on various PC platforms before, during, and after the PC-Engine/TG-16 and it's variants. Falcom was a partner of theirs, also doing the same. During the OGXbox days, some MS published titles(they didn't have as much in house then), were released on both PC and Xbox by MS itself.

For the most part, what MS is doing now is not anything new. In fact, outside the surprise of Sega starting to release Sonic games on PC in the Genesis days, it's never been that big of a deal that it happens. But for some reason, some people are acting like MS is treading new ground, somehow becoming a bastion of consumer rights, and some posit that PC gamers give a crap either way, when they really don't for the most part. I mean, in the grander scheme of things, its about as big as Valve releasing their games on consoles. It's cool and all, but does it really change much of anything in the bigger picture?

People shouldn't hate on the idea. But at the same time, pontificating on what it could mean for the console itself is a perfectly valid debate....mostly filled with assumption, hyperbole, and exaggeration from all sides. Some people also shouldn't act like it's some new golden age for gaming, or that the state of the gaming industry, and the way the consumer interacts with it, is being drastically changed because of it.

Welshy30d ago


You're missing the point. The media would have you believe that essentially converting your "exclusives" into 3rd parties is some brave step into a bold new direction for the industry.

When Sega's hardware collapsed and they turned into a 3rd party publisher, it was a huge failure for Sega, but Xbox seeing the writing on the wall for their hardware and preemptively putting their games on other systems to plug the hardware sales gap is suddenly a bold innovation?

If MS essentially setting themselves up to be 3rd party publishers should their hardware collapse is forward thinking, then by that logic Sega should be credited as geniuses for doing it years ago.

DaDrunkenJester30d ago

The difference is sega backed out because lack of money. They had no support for the Saturn in the US and then they used 32x which was expensive and risky and people just burned all their games.

360 was a success so while still underselling the 360 a little is no doubt a failure, it doesn't mean they lost so much money that they're backing out completely and going full 3rd party. It is forcing them to change a lot, bolster their first party studios, create policies and programs that are consumer friendly. Which I think will end up helping out fir next gen.

Apocalypse Shadow29d ago

Perfectly said Welshy.

The Jedi mind tricks that these people and Microsoft are trying to use on the rest of us isn't going to work.

King_Noctis29d ago (Edited 29d ago )

Sega turned into a third party dev after their console collapsed and they officially bow out of the hardware market with no planned future console or any ongoing service.

MS put some of their games on other console while they STILL operating on their own concole. On top of that, Scarlett is a thing. Their next gen streaming-only hardware is also still a thing. Gamepass is there and will be there to support their vision.

Notice any difference?


Why am I not surprised that you just nodded your head and go along with whatever Welshy says.

LordJamar29d ago

Jeez give it a rest we get it you hate Xbox you are everywhere trashing it go do something else

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 29d ago
StormLegend30d ago

Let MS keep doing what they do, I'll gladly not buy a cosole from them, when I can play those games anywhere.

YodaCracker29d ago

They wouldn’t be doing it if it didn’t make them the most money, so keep giving them your money whatever platform you’re playing on.

StormLegend29d ago

I'm totally fine with that.

rainslacker29d ago (Edited 29d ago )

They'd need to make more games I'm interested in for me to even buy the games. Not that I think all their games are bad, but this gen, the biggest problem I have with them is their game output and quality. Forza has been good, but I don't need a new racing title every year. The newest gears is good, but I'm not really into the motif's presented in Gears, and the story isn't good enough to let me get over my lack of interest in space marine stories. If it was Mass Effect level sure, I'd be all over it, but it's not. Halo is good, but look, more space marines. Fable I like, but haven't had one in a while. The smaller games like Ori and Cuphead, yeah, I like those. But SoT is not my thing. SoD2, I'm not a big zombie fan. CD3, yeah, OK.

Sony is often accused of having games that follow the same formula too much. As in, the structure of Uncharted is not that much different than the new God of War, so, Uncharted with ancient Gods. Horizon could be a open world Uncharted with dinosaurs and a female lead. The Last of Us is a Uncharted game with "zombies". Days Gone is an open world The Last of Us, with a weaker story. But, when you go through the list, even though they all can be said to have a "Sony feel"(which you know if you play Sony games like this), they are all different from one another. Uncharted is adventuring. TLOU is adventuring with Zombies. GOW is more casual and arcadey, but now with a deeper story. Horizon is nothing new in the open world space, but it feels fresh, because robot dinosaurs and solid execution. Days Gone is a new IP, and while maybe a mix of UC and TLOU and Horizon, forges it's own identity. Every game is different.

MS, on the other hand, has a yearly Forza. This will be the first year without a Forza game...excluding the Lego expansion. But several gears games, Halo now moving to the marketing lists. and not much else except those lower budget games. For big releases, it is the same for MS. Basically a FPS space marine game, a TPS space marine game, and racing games with two different styles. That's a far departure to the first couple years this gen where they looked like they were going to be bringing a lot of new and interesting content, and said they were, to which they ended up not doing it, and passing off mid-tier titles as AAA releases in terms of marketing and hype....exasberbated by the fact that the Xbox fan boys had only those mid-tier games to really bolster up as a reason Xbox was worth having....or hardware was the reason.

It's good that more can experience the good games they have. But, the availability of MS games wasn't the problem that MS was having, nor was making them more available some solution to the poor performance that I feel they delivered this gen. Just because they are setting themselves up for a productive next gen, doesn't change anything for me, or them, this gen.