Well done MS for paying billions for games that were already coming to your system!... are people taking crazy pills, all MS has done is keep their games library the same but shrink the library's of competitors... hence why the UK courts just call out MS on the BS of buying up another market.
Microsoft sees games as content. It seems not so much interested in creating games – or selling consoles – as owning where, how we play them and who's allowed to.
Question: If MS didn't buy Bethesda and Zenimax, wouldn't these "great" games be on PS as well? The difference is Sony develops great games in house, while MS buys titles taking credit for their creation. The delusion is real.
Considering both Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathloop were paid timed exclusives for Playstation from Bethesda before the aquisition. I can see a world where Sony did the same to Hi-Fi Rush and Redfall had Microsoft not purchased the company.
Microsoft may have gotten games that otherwise would NOT have been coming to their system, at least not right away.
Also common Sony is doing the same thing with Final Fantasy this year, and the upcoming Silent Hill 2 and KOTOR. Content is king and they both know it, hence why so much money is being spent to keep these games off competing platforms from all sides.
You're saying a whole lot of what ifs and uncertainties.
All three gaming companies already buy timed exclusives. They all do it. This is not Microsoft's retaliation to Sony buying timed exclusives or anything like that. This is Microsoft wanting to keep a grip on the subscription market which is the only thing they have cared about investing in. I'm not totally defending timed exclusives. But, a timed exclusive that will come to other platforms, or even a permenant third party exclusive is totally different from buying the entire developer and never having even their major AAA games on other systems ever again.
As your examples show, you don't have to buy an entire company to get them to make a game or two a timed exclusive. Sony could only afford to buy marketing rights for COD, and what, get a week headstart on betas and some exclusive cosmetics? MS comes in and just buys the company and the horse it rode in on lol
“Considering both Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathloop were paid timed exclusives for Playstation from Bethesda before the aquisition. I can see a world where Sony did the same to Hi-Fi Rush and Redfall had Microsoft not purchased the company.”
Times exclusives vs full blown exclusives. Big difference.
"Considering both Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathloop were paid timed exclusives for Playstation from Bethesda before the aquisition. I can see a world where Sony did the same to Hi-Fi Rush and Redfall had Microsoft not purchased the company."
Perfect!
"Also common Sony is doing the same thing with Final Fantasy this year, and the upcoming Silent Hill 2 and KOTOR. Content is king and they both know it, hence why so much money is being spent to keep these games off competing platforms from all sides."
Except final fantasy 7 remake can release on Xbox if square wanted it to. They exclusivity rights ended. These games just don't sell very well on Xbox.
@darkrider if it wasn’t for Microsoft , Bethesda wouldn’t even be making console games let’s make that clear. Morrowind was their first console game and where was it exclusive to because of who helping them ?? Xbox and Microsoft that’s a fact … Bethesda is to Microsoft , as Isomniac is to PlayStation …
“Oh noes! HiFi Rush and Redfall might have been timed exclusives for PS! Luckily all MS had to do was buy the parent publishing company!”
Do you even hear yourself?
Translation: “It’s not fair for people to expect Poor MS to compete on an even playing field, like actually having to outbid Evil Sony for timed exclusives or content. It’s good that they are just buying the publishers instead, so they won’t have to endure the indignity of actually bidding against Evil Sony.”
It bears repeating: Sony pays publishers for timed exclusives — that will still come to Xbox at a later time. MS BUYS ENTIRE PUBLISHING COMPANIES to keep ALL their developers’ games off PS — FOREVER.
Objectively, one of these approaches is barely an inconvenience, whilst the other is a shit sandwich.
You already answer. Studio! Not publisher. Sony never got one publisher much less Two! And even so it's diferent. Sony got bungie and destiny is available for Microsoft gamers. No drama
What I cant understand is after more then 2 year some Microsoft gamers don't understand the diference of buying a single studio with a publisher.... I
Because, they have rarely gone and bought any major third party developer that wasn't already nearly making games entirely for them during a strong partnership over many years.
They also know how to manage the studios they have and are famed for quality studio management. Microsoft is the opposite, notorious for poor quality games, incomplete releases, disappointments, and constantly backing up to the same titles over and over without anything in between.
They also are a big reason for those studios success in the first place.
All big console makers buy third party exclusives timed or not. So this argument is a boring one since people try and say Sony bought this or that and MS is responding by buying the entire thing.
The one exception to Sony's pattern of buying major AAA developers is Bungie, but they didn't buy them to make them exclusive. They bought them because of their great partnership that even started when MS still owned them and Naughty Dog used to exchange ideas with them. They bought them because ever since they kept a good relationship and respected them. They bought them to have better insight and collaboration for their online systems and future multiplayer titles. And, the stipulation during this acquisition was that Bungie is not exclusive to Sony unless they freely decide to be just like their a third party dev when it comes to game releases.
Do you not know how PS started? In '93 Sony bought Psygnosis, a video game publisher. That was their first gaming acquisition. That's how they created their publishing arm because it was much faster to just buy someone that could already publish. They had Psygnosis get started developing and getting ready to publish games for the original PS launch in '95.
No it isn't the same as buying Activision, but you guys need to educate yourselves on PS's history before you make claims like that.
The difference is that Insomniac, Santa Monica, and Sucker Punch were already developing for Sony by choice. Perhaps you missed the thank that Sony received from the Deathloop team even after the acquisition. That indicates that Sony was assisting them throughout the development process. This is proving true with other 3rd party devs as well. What does MS assist with? They have a history of mismanagement before inevitable closures.
I did a little looking. Besides multiplatform games it looks like they published less then 40 games before Sony bought. That's besides the point. Activision has published 100s if not thousands of games
The point I'm going after is after looking it shows multiple games developed for other systems after Sony bought them. Including nes, snes, Amiga, ms dos,ps1,
Where as ms buying Activision those games are gone off ps aside for cod for a period.
Exactly man it’s only a problem when ms does it. Sony can’t afford the whole company so timed deals is all they can do. If Sony had the cash they would buy like ms smh but ppl dnt care when Sony do it.
@shinoff I agree. They are certainly different. I'm just trying to correct darkrider. I don't blame Sony for doing it either. It was a faster way to get PS started and it certainly worked out for the best.
It's so ironic when XBers bring up how much money MS has, what Sony can't afford, etc. while the XB community is universally known for NOT buying anything. It's like the kid that has rich parents, but they didn't grow up to be shit. Perhaps the broke guy who brags about how much money their buddy has. In any case, Sony has enough to keep chirning out hit after hit. You don't need to afford a whole company when you're talented enough to make the wealther competition feel like they have to.🤣
Ladies and gentlemen, do you understand why MS's money doesn't matter? Much like a lottery winner with no financial literacy, they have no clue what to do in gaming. Sony, on the other hand, is like bushido. Though most were wealthy, 180 billion, respectively, they focused on their skills/abilities because they knew that others would come for their position. Just like American colonizers, this is MS's attempt to take the land when the indigenous refuse to bend the knee. They say they're Sony's competition, though this playing field resembles that of America vs. Vietcog...a slaughter.
It isn’t different…. Just comes down to money, if Sony had deeper pockets they would opt to buy publishers instead of studios. It’s business and money wins every time.
@porkchop Oh little porkychop... you know where I first played G-Police, Overboard and WipEout? PC, that isn't a typo I played all Psygnosis games from that era right through 1999 on a desktop computer via legitimate PC game ports.
See PlayStation bought Psygnosis, but Psygnosis still made brand new games for PC up until PS2 started shipping in 2000. So even your best attempt to say "PS bad" is really not so good and of course Psygnosis saw more success on PS at the time anyway. Unfortunately the dev was renamed to Studio Liverpool and WipEout HD and 2048 apparently didn't do well enough to keep the dev around according to SCEE (now SIEE) canned most of the staff and dissolved the studio in 2013 or so. Other studios followed including Guerrilla Cambridge (Killzone Mercenaries for PS Vita) and Evolution Studios (MotorStorm and DRIVECLUB) during the restructuring of then Sony Computer Entertainment Europe.
Darkrider - What's the real difference? Does it really matter if it's a publisher with 4/5 studios or Sony buying 5 individual studios?
It's the same amount of studios, regardless. Just because Destiny is on both systems, doesn't mean that will always be the case nor does it mean any new game from them will, either.
@Variant I didn't say PS was bad, nor was I claiming it was somehow the same as buying Activision. Dark claimed they've never bought one publisher. That's factually untrue because their first gaming acquisition was in fact buying a publisher.
So basically MS is competitng by offering quality games for their system in third place, by increasing their once miniscule first party...this is what you do to compete.
"Microsoft sees games as content. It seems not so much interested in creating games"
What kind of logic is this? In order to create content, you need developers to create games. You think MS can just magically do it themselves in their Redmond offices?
It's always funny to hear the complaints shift from one end of the spectrum to the other. Before it was Xbox has no games, Xbox doesn't have any first party studios, to now Xbox is keeping games off other systems, Xbox is buying too many studios. Those goals posts are going to need some good michelin tires for how fast and hard they're moving.
All of your points are true Xbox has no games that they are creating that weren't already going to come out in other systems. Xbox needs more studios but nobody expected them to buy up 20 plus studios and through mostly publishers. That's not something anybody wanted from anybody in the industry. And to be clear they're not buying any studio that they uniquely had a specific long-term relationship with. They are buying up publishers with extremely popular IP that have been successful mainly because of Sony's platform. Context matters and nobody is moving any goal posts. Critical thought is actually required for these conversations which is missing on one end of the spectrum for sure. Yes it does suck when there are time to exclusives and nobody disagrees but now somebody goes up and buys up a bunch of ip that was third party and one end of the spectrum has no problem whatsoever and in fact they are happy about it.
"Before it was Xbox has no games, Xbox doesn't have any first party studios, to now Xbox is keeping games off other systems, Xbox is buying too many studios. "
The revolving goal posts never end. It's either new goal posts or revert back to old goal posts. Depends on their argument.
Ms is in third place due to poor decisions. How do they have more then sony in about everything but consoles sold and still don't put anything out. What are those studios doing.
Crow90
It's been stated before that ms has more studios already then sony. I dont see why they need more. I agree with everything else
@Crows "Xbox needs more studios but nobody expected them to buy up 20 plus studios and through mostly publishers."
So it's against the rules to buy 20 plus studios? Is there a limit on how many studios a publisher can buy in order to provide games for their platform? Can you post a link on where it's against the rules for anyone to do this?
"That's not something anybody wanted from anybody in the industry."
Says who..because it seems the studios that MS bought definitely wanted it.
"And to be clear they're not buying any studio that they uniquely had a specific long-term relationship with."
Pretty sure they have had experiences with each of their studios they purchased, because each studio has definitely worked with MS and the Xbox platform before. I know you used the word "uniquely" in order to somehow make another rule that again has absolutely nothing to do with how the real world works. Besides, most of the studios MS purchased were also in financial trouble or needed guaranteed backing to start making triple A games. So again, who made up this rule, where does it say that a publisher has to have some type of long, loving courtship for years before they bend the knee and propose marriage?
"They are buying up publishers with extremely popular IP that have been successful mainly because of Sony's platform"
Not true, the IP's have been popular across all platforms, this is just another attempt to try and make Sony a victim and turn attention away from Sony doing the exact same thing by buying games and keeping them off Xbox.
"Context matters and nobody is moving any goal posts. Critical thought is actually required for these conversations which is missing on one end of the spectrum for sure."
I definitely agree, especially when the arguments are not presented in actual reality, when the argument consists of made up rules and illogical talking points. People wanted Xbox to compete, now they're complaining it's not fair how they're competing, this of course coming off of Sony's continued purchasing of third party exclusives and reports of them making deals to keep games off of Xbox Game Pass.
There's nothing stopping Sony from purchasing developers or publishers. If the issue is money, I'm sure Sony with their record breaking numbers can easily purchase more developers instead of timed exclusive deals.
"Sony doing the exact same thing by buying games and keeping them off Xbox."
So how come you're not complaining about Xbox doing that AND locking out gamers from previously Multiplatform games then? Hypocrite much? Haven't seen you complain once about Contraband, Warhammer Darktides, Stalker 2 or any other 3rd party game being kept off other platforms by Xbox now are you?! Hypocrisy at its finest! The goalpost only count if Playstation or Nintendo, but, Xbox you remove that goalpost in its entirety. Whereas what's missing because of Playstation and FF 16/7 Reborn and Nintendo Bayonetta 3 and prequel? So like 3 Xbox 3rd party exclusives coming up vs 2 Playstation and like 1 Nintendo, but, cries a river that big bad Playstation and Nintendo are keeping games off Xbox when Xbox has MORE 3rd party exclusives being blocked off other consoles?! Lol
"So how come you're not complaining about Xbox doing that AND locking out gamers from previously Multiplatform games then?"
Good lord, it's like context and comprehension is a foreign concept.
First of all I was never against platform holders making exclusive deals. You'll always find I made statements saying this is exactly how both MS and Sony would compete when both of their consoles are almost identical in terms of power and games would take much longer to develop.
The only reason I bring up Sony deals seriously or sarcasticly is because most here have this insane notion that it's only wrong when MS does it.
So please understand this before you rush to call someone a hypocrite without actually knowing what the topic or discussion is.
"all MS has done is keep their games library the same but shrink the library's of competitors."
A broken record that you are. Anyway Well Sony's financial results shows other wide with tremendous growth in consoles sales through and services this quarter while MSconsole sales fell. Not bad for "Shrinking" the library of Sony. They made money hand over fist. Yeah, Sony's reaaaally hurting here.
I disagree with the ABK stuff. In fact I could care less if it goes through or not. But Bethesda makes sense be to find their long partnership.
...are you jist going to ignore that hi fi rush is the only game that disnt release on playstation so far? The library hasnt shrunk yet so your point is a straw man.
I don't really mind Microsoft trying to compete in this space. The competition is encouraged because I know how Sony gets when they're too comfortable.
Is it a little pathetic? I mean, yeah. I think so. You've got the wealthiest company by leaps and bounds unable to grow their own studios by improving the quality of their output and are just using that money to buy talent. Reminds me of an episode of American Dad where Stan's son couldn't stand up to bullies, so he paid someone else to do it.
It's a legitimate strategy I suppose, but in a world that made sense, no company would be wealthy enough to be in a situation where these acquisitions are possible under one umbrella (and the least competent one in the gaming space, I'll add).
So After all this extreme concern trolling and severe downplaying MS got lucky to you. Good to know where you stand as it wasn't super obvious before. Btw Pentiment was also a passion project that flew under the radar at MS. What's your hundreds of lists of excuses and downplays on that?
Yeah I rest my case.... It's clear you don't know anything regarding Xbox ever.
Pentiment flew under the radar at MS and wasn't interfered nor tampered with. Btw Obsidian made Pentiment and has good scores. I'm saying did that game "lucky" also.
How does stating two games, one that went under MS's radar but received public notice where the other didn't, prove anything? How does it even touch on the subject of MS having issues making/supporting game development? Again, don't know what Pentiment is but would bet it existed before MS bough their publisher.
yeah the also pays for street fighter final fantasy and project eve and square enix games...oh wait thats not MS what about paying devs so the games doesnt come to gamepass .... double standard boy!
Child, your understanding of publishers vs single titles is embarrassing, why do you think MS buying all these publishers is getting the such attention from the Federal Trade Commission, European Commission, the Competition and Markets Authority UK?
@Mrdead Publishers... studios whatever it is they block games from xbox for ips that should be multiplatform they also buys studios and ip (hm spiderman) also exclsuive contents and anything they can get their hand to and actually paying to block games from gamepass which is shameful
They are doing anything with the money they have to get exclsuivity so f*** off with your hypocrisy and open your eyes because you guys are hypnotized
Hypocrisy you say? Where have we ever seen you complain about any Xbox 3rd party exclusives? There's at least 3 major ones like Contraband, Warhammer Darktides and Stalker 2. Never once saw you complain about those?! How about Nintendo and Bayonetta 3 and it's upcoming prequel? Again never see any complaints there either?! So want to see a hypocrite look in the mirror.
Playstation fanboys really are the worst! Full-blown hypocrites.
As for the Bethesda purchase, yes it was good investment by Microsoft. It would also have been a good investment if Sony purchased them, but that didn't happen... so move on already.
Yeah Xbox fanboys like you are much better. How come you don't complain about Xbox 3rd party exclusives?! Contraband? Warhammer Darktides? Stalker 2? Some big 3rd party exclusives coming to Xbox soon and no complaints from any of you hypocrites.
I actually find it funny that XBox gets one good game and all of a sudden people act like they're console king of the generation. I suspect Microsoft might have killed more games than they would have had with how it's mismanaged the studios it's bought.
I find it funny that the same people that claim all 3rd person/action/adventure game for Playstation 1st party games are the 'same' and don't do anything different (and therefore don't count) have these imaginary goalpost put on the field for Playstation, but, now Hi Fi Rush comes out and praise the gods it's so so good and different now.
Oh really?! Short 3rd person adventure game which was being not counted before is now a goal passed the same goalpost aye? Oh so now it counts?! Lol. But yeah Gravity Rush, GoW, Uncharted, Ratchet & Clank all the same type of game.... uhh okay.
And we all know by now that a lot of these titles will inevitably be delayed, then cancelled, and their studios will be shut down. We've seen this before.
Agree 100% with MrDead. Also going to point out that one good game does not repay the $7B that Microsoft spent on ZeniMax. Microsoft really needs these games to drive up subscriber numbers, and so far that hasn’t happened.
How would that be any different? MS invested in a company with a good track record and that investment is paying off. Would it have changed Hi Fi Rush three or four years later?
Let's not kid ourselves, if the game was trash, we would be here blaming and teasing MS for spending money on a trash game and developer house.
Stop kidding yourself. Too much damage control for MS when they still haven't earned a good standing. I don't see anyone blaming for a just released game and yet instant verbal awarding to them for games they had nothing to contribute to, and even praise for fixing games with massive shortcomings at launch while forgetting they have many others still unfixed or failed to follow through. Lets not make up arguments or cherry pick one fanboy on another team as the realistic public comment. I don't see why there is one or two dozen like-minded people always arguing with themselves over what some random same-minded fanboy of another team might come up with like their self-argued point isn't any less ignorant or not objective.
So exactly ehat and how should MS contribute to a game? What are you even asking from MS in order to have an acknowledgement that they have a great hit under their belt?
The issue is, no matter what MS does certain folks will find cosmic ways to still find faults with MS. These same people will have no problems talking up MS's short comings and failures but then when MS tries to rectify these same issues or actually comes through with a hit game like Hi Fi Rush, these same people will then still criticize them with unrealistic expectations or procedures.
As I said above, the main complaint was Xbox has no games, now the complaint is the games don't count because they weren't originally under MS.
Not a hard concept. The contribution is that it was greenlit and managed during its development by them.
All the games released had been greenlit and past major milestones without ms having a hand in it to potentially screw it up or make it better.
Starfield and Elder scrolls 6 will still be games they didnt really do anything to make exist. But at least they will have had ES6 under their managment enough to say it was their game. Starfield not so much.
Ms has passed on a few games that they didn't see the potential of.
Well done MS for paying billions for games that were already coming to your system!... are people taking crazy pills, all MS has done is keep their games library the same but shrink the library's of competitors... hence why the UK courts just call out MS on the BS of buying up another market.
Microsoft sees games as content. It seems not so much interested in creating games – or selling consoles – as owning where, how we play them and who's allowed to.
One game does well and suddenly the heavens open
You know the game that was in development well before MS even bought them
An investment paying off would be better looked at with the games coming out in 3-4 years which started when MS took charge.