Starfield exclusivity is why Sony doesn’t trust Microsoft’s promises

Sony’s unwillingness to accept Microsoft’s Call Of Duty deal is partially due to the company’s handling of the Bethesda acquisition.

Obscure_Observer77d ago


Now Sony is crying over Starfield´s exclusivity to Xbox as an excuse to not accept Microsoft´s 10 year deal for COD, with allegations on how Microsoft shouldn´t be trusted over a game that was never announced for Playstation in the first place. XD

Sonyslave377d ago

Bruh shit is just sad, Microsoft told everyone exclusives would be case by case.

1Victor77d ago

@slave#3 : “ Bruh shit is just sad, Microsoft told everyone exclusives would be case by case.”
Sure Microsoft case by case basis is code word for “head I win tail you loose “
Microsoft have been caught by the federal regulators way too many times with their hands inside the monopoly pot for me to trust what they say 🤔.
Buying a game exclusivity for a year or so does not equate buying a publisher with the intent of removing the games from the competition with one of the biggest community for those game regardless of console maker

Kados77d ago

Yeah, feel free to correct me if i am wrong, but iirc, MS never once claimed that all Zenimax/Bethesda games would be multiplatform. I vaguely recall them passingly implying that TES would remain multiplatform, but they said everything else would be on a case by case.

IRetrouk76d ago (Edited 76d ago )

Before the deal went through they claimed exclusivity of zenimax titles made no sense to the European regulators, the regulators agreed with this sentiment, thats all sony pointed out, they aint wrong, but neither is ms for making them exclusive.

OptimusDK56d ago

@IRetrouk thatbis pure bullshit and has been debunked by the eu towards the ftc

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 56d ago
PrinceOfAnger77d ago

Funny it is not a problem for sony to make final fantasy and street fighter v etc exclusive for their platform but microsoft making starfield an exclusive is wrong.

darkrider77d ago

2 Games not publishers. Microsoft already did the same with games. There no comparison.

It doesn't matter how many times Microsoft gsmers try to compare two games with a publisher. It's not the same thing.

Right now Microsoft gamers almost don't buy games. The sales are very low. Again, just see what happend with Harry potter the biggest seller of the year, more sales then elden ring! 80% on playstation consoles. It's not a ln exclusive...

What Microsoft did with buying beteshda was taking tons of games from more then 200 millions player Sony and nintendo. Now are available to the smallest companies in videogaming...

Redemption-6477d ago

You and your ilk are so narrow minded, it's sad. 1 Sony didn't buy Square or Capcom, 2, without Sony SFV would not exist. I don't recall seeing a single Xbox fanboys complaining when Octopath Traveler went to Xbox, but not to Playstation. Yet the amount of crying about Sony paying to keep Octopath Traveler 2 off Xbox was very entertaining to watch.

Didn't MS lie about Sony paying to keep Bloodborne off Xbox, when it was Sony, who not only approached FromSoftware, they literally co-developed the game with full funds from Sony? 3, MS also has exclusive deal with other 3rd party devs that they paid to keep off PS. 4, Sony isn't going around pretending to be the good guy, claiming the want more people to play their games, or that, they are not taking games away for any platform, then turn around and do exactly that. You can literally use the same logic they have used for COD for Starfield. Pete Hines also stated that, there was no exclusive deals until MS purchased them.

TriniOutsider77d ago

Sony helped with the development of SF-V. It was clearly stated during the development of the game that Sony helped with the game. Also, FF isn't exclusive it is a dam-timed exclusive and y'all know that as well.

343_Guilty_Spark77d ago

They will just say Sony “helped” with those games.

Yea helped with paying to keep them off Xbox.

Notice no issue for Capcom to develop SF6 on multiple platforms including Xbox.

343_Guilty_Spark77d ago


Look at you trying to make Xbox fans feel bad for subscribing to play multiple games instead of spending $70 per title. Lol

gangsta_red77d ago (Edited 77d ago )

"Sony helped with the development of SF-V. It was clearly stated during the development of the game that Sony helped with the game."

Sony never helped with development, Sony made a publishing deal with Capcom for the rights to SFV. It was never clearly stated by Sony or Capcom what was needed by Sony that it had to be only exclusive to Playstation. And it obviously wasn't any concerns of Capcom's financial situation at the time because they had RE and MvC I in development at the same time.

The whole Sony helped with development' was an excuse used because a few months before, MS was getting pelted with hate for making TR a timed exclusive and the same people who pushed that now had to backpaddle for Sony.

Lightning7777d ago

"The sales are very low. Again, just see what happend with Harry potter the biggest seller of the year, more sales then elden ring! 80% on playstation consoles. It's not a ln exclusive..."

I wonder why that is? Aw it's because of marketing rights. Marketing was so strong casuals thought it was only on PS5 on top of exclusive content.

Marketing, marketing, marketing. It's powerful thing.

Charlieboy33377d ago

Sony funded SFV and nobody buys Final Fantasy on Xbox

shinoff218377d ago

Prince of anger. Ms has 3rd party exclusives deals to. Plus yall don't even buy ff

PrinceOfAnger77d ago


Yeah look how some of you fanboys are narrow minded, many of you keep saying microsoft started all this 3rd party exclusives thing! ,Then forget that playstation was released way long before first xbox

Chris Deering
We targeted Microsoft from day one -- we were ruthless," he says. "I'm not of this mentality anymore, but at the time it was life or death as far as I was concerned. We had this expression in our business meetings: 'Kill them right at the start and take no prisoners
Chris Deering, who was Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) Europe's boss at the time.
says that the company still wanted to embrace a broad audience, including more mature demographics. One of his core focuses was -- as with the original PlayStation -- trying to nail down as many third-party exclusives as possible.

We were asking what we could do to make it difficult for Sega or Nintendo to come back," he explains. "We didn't start with a big portfolio of game development studios like Sega and Nintendo had. We were really friendly with third-parties right from day one".

shinoff218377d ago


Your so full of sh. Sure maybe marketing can be said for higher sales on one or the other but 80 percent sales on ps show that xbox gamers don't buy games. Everyone knows its on all systems. People just gamepass on xbox. Not all but most. I'm one of them

Vengeance113877d ago (Edited 77d ago )

You realize SF V's development was funded by Sony right? Why on earth would it release on Xbox when it wouldn't have existed without Sony? Is Sony just in the business of funding Xbox games now? Why do you think Bayonetta is exclusive to Nintendo? Because Nintendo funded it, they didnt just pay to keep it off other platforms.

I know its hard to put effort into researching these things but do atleast try.

As for FF, that just makes sense to not have an Xbox version, they would never recoup costs.

Redemption-6477d ago


You cannot be this ignorant. No one with a brain with make up this lie you just created, but that is expected with you and your ilk. The closest I have seen anyone make such a claim is if they are specifically talking about COD and this might be a hard question for a person like you, but can you take a wild guess who started it all with COD? Aside from that, Sony, Nintendo and others have been in the gaming industry for long and have all been paying for exclusive content. MS joined them and has been doing it for years. The issue I see is bots calling out Sony for the same practice MS not only takes part in, but have been doing it for years.

Lightning7777d ago (Edited 77d ago )

To add to @Gangsta comment. Street Fighter fell short of expectations sales wise and especially critically. It has a 77 metacritic vs a massive 94 metacritic in Street Fighter 4. It wasn't a "flop" necessarily but it left more to be desired.

If Capcome was struggling financially they would of cut a deal again with Sony. Them struggling was a fairy tale lie that was just a pure PR move by Capcome. They were cappin.

They quickly learned that being on one platform was a mistake.

If money was the issue then Street Fighter 6 would never be a thing.

P_Bomb77d ago (Edited 77d ago )

All this talk about SFV and Capcom. You know what other Capcom game is exclusive (and on deep sale right now)? Dead Rising 3. On Xbox.

Thinking of buying it. You know, how we used to roll.

gangsta_red77d ago


"Why on earth would it release on Xbox when it wouldn't have existed without Sony?"

That's hilarious if you actually believe the number ONE fighting game in gaming history, the main attraction in all EVO's and fighting tournaments around the world, Capcom's flagship title that is more recognizable than any other game they have, wouldn't have existed without Sony's help and yet Capcom had Marvel vs Capcom Infinite (which was a huge flop by the way) ready to release a bit later.

"If money was the issue then Street Fighter 6 would never be a thing."

That's the point I keep bringing up that no one seems to answer. A few here like to bring up percentages and compare sales numbers as if these developers/publishers don't have the same if not better data. If games don't sell on Xbox like they claim then why do these same devs keep releasing on the Xbox console? Do these people here on N4G have better sales data than the actual accountants working for developers, and if this is the case then why does Sony still have to pay for timed exclusives?

DarkZane77d ago

@gangsta_red "If games don't sell on Xbox like they claim then why do these same devs keep releasing on the Xbox console?"

Square-Enix is actually not releasing their games like FF7R and FFXVI on Xbox especially because they don't sell, not because of some imaginary deal you Xbox fanboys think Sony made. You guys need to realize your console of choice is just last place materiel that a lot of developers just don't give a shit about.

MontyeKristo76d ago

Darkrider - I don't know about sales figures; however, I bought Hogwarts Legacy on the PS5 due to the extra mission and costumes. I was getting the game anyway, so extra content is obviously the way to go.

Something Sony must have paid for, no?

Magatsuhi76d ago

Sf5 would not exist if Sony didn't fund it so why would it be on Xbox? FF16 also needed funding and Sony provided and it's timed exclusive.

Nice false equivalence.

IRetrouk76d ago

Lightning and red
They were struggling financially though lol, there are records and articles about it, use Google and search for their 2013 and 2014 fiscal year reports.... let me know what you find.
They made a deal with Sony to help with funding and development, and it worked out well for them, highest selling version of street fighter so far with over 7 million copies sold across ps4 and pc, why make things up lads?

Also red, tekken has sold more overall than streetfighter, also capcom clearly stated why it went exclusive a year before launch.

"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."

+ Show (20) more repliesLast reply 76d ago
77d ago Replies(6)
crazyCoconuts77d ago

MS indicated in writing that they had no intention of using Bethesda/Z to make exclusive games and went through a bunch of reasons about how it would be stupid (financially) for them to do so. Then they did it.
Sony is positing that it stands to reason they'd want to do it again with Activision/COD. It's the same argument the regulatory agencies had earlier.

LabRat77d ago (Edited 77d ago )

I believe they said they would honor current agreements (deathloop, Tokyo ghostwire, etc.) Never that they would forever make all future games playable on PS. They spent 7 billion for a reason. Plus wasn't Sony trying to make starfield exclusive for a year? I don't personally see a lot of people rushing out to buy an Xbox just to play starfield though.

crazyCoconuts77d ago

They did actually state in a response to the European commission that it doesn't make sense for them to release any exclusives from the acquired company. They didn't promise anything, but they basically said "now why would i want to do that?"
Someone posted the actual text on N4G in a comment somewhere, but I can't easily find it...

shinoff218377d ago (Edited 77d ago )

He'll I'd be happy if if starfield came out to ps after a year or two. Being fixed up maybe some free dlc. I'd buy day one.

Actually labrat
That's what I'm waiting for

Lightning7777d ago

"MS indicated in writing that they had no intention of using Bethesda/Z to make exclusive games and went through a bunch of reasons about how it would be stupid (financially) for them to do so."

I still want proof of this. If not then you're making it up. You can't be since it's in writing right? Btw I can't find it you mind liking it?

mkis00777d ago

I posted it at some point...

Lightning7777d ago

@Shin you'll be a skeleton waiting forever lol.

You need to move on.

Michiel198977d ago

@labrat I strongly disagree with that last statement. Skyrim is one of the most common household names when it comes to rpgs, everyone knows it. Hell.... my mom has even heard of it. If starfield turns out to be even close to the success that skyrim was, it will sell system. Starfield "by the creators of skyrim", with the prospect of their future games being exclusive to xbox as well, that will sell systems.

mkis00776d ago


"Microsoft in the original report from the agency on the ZeniMax deal did state it "would not have the incentive to cease or limit making ZeniMax games available for purchase on rival consoles."

This is the misleading statement that the whole thing is centered on. That sure does sound like they would release on rival consoles to me. No one is saying it was a promise...they are saying the words can't be trusted because they left out " but we will do it anyway".

oof4676d ago

No. That was when the FTC claimed that MS made promises to the EU and broke them, and then the EU came back and stated that it wasn't the case.

Direct quote from EU regulator: "Microsoft didn't make any commitments to EU regulators not to release Xbox-exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media."

IRetrouk76d ago (Edited 76d ago )

The European commission stated that no commitments were made based off exclusivity and that that wasn't a concern for them for the merger going through, but ms DID state it to the eu commission, which is what the ftc and sony pointed out.

Also, read the updated article mkis posted

"First, the European competition commission says that it has no comment on whether it agrees that Microsoft didn’t stay true to its assurances to the EU on ZeniMax," said Totilo.

oof4676d ago

@IRetrouk: Yes, because there is a difference. In regards to Bethesda, they said they "had no incentive" which is just a fancy way of saying "Yeeeeeah, well...not now" but with Activision, they've used concrete words like "commitment" and have put in writing with Nintendo and Nvidia.

I'm just saying, in regards to Bethesda, they never "promised". Even the EU said so. But, in regards to Activision and CoD, they have.

To your last point, the EU didn't comment on how they on if MS kept their promises in order to stay impartial. (Which is all anyone could ask) They did say they would update everything when they give their full report and verdict on the ABK deal.

crazyCoconuts76d ago

@retro great job finding that. I tried for a bit and gave up.
@oof and others, the only point here is that this supports Sony's suspicion that MS is keen to say one thing and do another.
And given their opinion that after reviewing the proposed 10 year contract they concluded it had too many outs for Microsoft, this all supports a plausible reason for Sony to be uncomfortable with it

IRetrouk76d ago (Edited 76d ago )

Stop it man, they laid out their reasons for not making the games exclusive and the European commision accepted their word on it because they didn't feel it would effect competition either way.... promise or not, they stated their intent and then went completely in the opposite direction. (Which is fine, they own em, they can do what they want).
My last point is exactly what the eu said after being asked about it, hence me asking you to read the updated story...
Commitments don't mean much either, do you know how many times ms has been sued and fined for breaking contracts etc?

@crazy, no probs man👍

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 76d ago
curtain_swoosh77d ago

MS is crying over timed exclusivity to Sony as an excuse to say the deal should go through, with allegations on how Sony is the Market leader and keeping games off Xbox.

see how that goes both ways? fairly easy.

OneLove77d ago (Edited 77d ago )

Lmao they will cry that it's cuz microsoft bought bethesda where as Sony didn't. What a stupid ass excuse.

SoulWarrior77d ago (Edited 77d ago )

Yeahhhhh, Starfield was just gonna skip Sony's platform before the buyout when the last I don't know how many Bethesda games released on and sold superior on PS for almost a decade because reasons, that reasoning you suggest is flimsy at best.

shinoff218377d ago

Obscure your full of sh. Everyone knew starfield was multi console. Say what you want.

Abracadabra77d ago (Edited 77d ago )

Sony wanted to make Starfield PS5 exclusive before the Bethesda acquisition... now the are bitching because Microsoft made the game their exclusive. UNBELIEVABLE hypocrisy from Sony.

As for promises, did Microsoft promise they would bring Bethesda games to PS5 after the acquisition?

Lightning7777d ago

New games? No. Legacy titles or older games, yes they'll continue to get supported. That's why Hi Fi, Redfall and Starfield aren't on PS.

Imalwaysright77d ago

No. They said that releases of Bethesda games on other consoles would be on a case by case basis and that they would honor the deals Sony had with Bethesda wich they did.

IRetrouk76d ago

They stated they had no incentive to make them exclusive, old, new, it doesn't matter, they claimed something then did the opposite, its their right though, they own em🤷‍♂️

Rude-ro77d ago

1. You obviously did not read the article.
Starfield was an example, along with other titles, where Microsofts sales pitch on buying these larger developers were not the actual reality once in action.
2. Microsoft going after the larger developers does far more damage than just owning the ips.
You have licensing, the patents and a stranglehold on future hardware designs along with dictating the largest game to date.. because sony will have to play along or give Microsoft the ability to say anything as to why a game would not be on their hardware.
I understand the lack of business knowledge from the team microsoft defense force on this subject.. but the ramifications of Microsoft owning these companies, especially one with such a large consumer base, are huge against competitors. In many ways.

One has to ask why. Why does Microsoft want this purchase? Is it just profit? From a company that has bought just as many developers as Sony but in less time and with far less return in gaming?… with the dismantling of over half of those purchased.. why does Microsoft want this deal?

Soulsborne77d ago

You have the mindset of a child. Atleast your opinion is as useless as the next person on here.

neutralgamer199277d ago

Y'all don't get tired of arguing all the damn time? Enjoy games and whatever happens we will see. So much negativity in society in general

DarXyde76d ago

"I don’t know how to allay the fears and concerns of PlayStation 5 fans other than to say, 'Well, I’m a PlayStation 5 player as well,' Hines added. "And I’ve played games on that console, and there’s games I’m gonna continue to play on it. But if you want to play Starfield? PC and Xbox."

"Sorry, all I can really say is, 'I apologize,' because I'm certain that's frustrating to folks, but there's not a whole lot I can do about it."

-Pete Hines

I'm pretty sure it was originally going to be multiplatform. This screams "tell us your game was intended for a wider audience without telling us it was intended for a wider audience".

Personally, it's whatever. I don't really care either way because I don't like Bethesda games (though I do like Tango Gameworks) but the implication that Microsoft should not be trusted is very spot on. Obviously, it's part of XGS now, so they can make that call, no problems there. But do you not understand the incentive for Sony to say "we're going all in to block this"?

Microsoft can do whatever they want with their own studios, and PlayStation is doing as they want in dragging out this battle.

I don't blame either, though I'm supportive of Sony's efforts here.

Understand that you are actively advocating for industry change that can have extremely far reaching negative consequences; I and many others are advocating for... Things to remain neutral.

Imagine simping for a trillion dollar corporation that has the resources to develop any stellar game it wants, but simply refuses to do it because there's no passion in their work and their first party quality output is junk for no real reason at all.

If it fails, great!
If it succeeds, well... PlayStation was already kicking the shit out of Xbox in title quality. Might be poking a bear if Sony is forced to really compete with Call of Duty.

That's another thing, actually! Sony doesn't even seem that bothered by the acquisition itself. The problem is Call of Duty. If Microsoft really has such good intentions here, why not acquire ABK and cleave off IW and Treyarch?

Probably because..... Sony is right not to trust Microsoft.

TheEroica76d ago

169 downvotes from sour gamers who don't like getting dunked on.

DeusFever76d ago

Should Microsoft be trusted? Microsoft was going to raise the price of Xbox Lice Gold to $10/month until the severe backlash caused them to do a 180. Competition forces Microsoft to be trustworthy.

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 56d ago
jonny89777d ago

Starfield was in development for PS5. Sony wanted it to be a timed exclusive.

Obscure_Observer77d ago

"Sony wanted it to be a timed exclusive."

You got it right. WANTED

They never had any sort of exclusive deal. Not even a port secured, so a PS5 version of Starfield never existed outside world of mouth, otherwise MS would be legally obliged to comply and honor it´s release on PS5, just like they did with previous contracts on Ghostwire Tokio and Deathloop.

Sony never had nothing on Starfield, that´s why it isn´t coming to PS5.

SoulWarrior77d ago

'Not even a port secured, so a PS5 version of Starfield never existed outside world of mouth'

Hey lets just spout a load of crap without evidence, Phil is that you?

shinoff218377d ago

Starfield was definitely coming to ps5. Probably was in development to.

Vengeance113877d ago (Edited 77d ago )

lmao "thats why it isn't coming to PS5" HAHAHAAHAHA
Classic delusional take from you. You are some kind of insider now on all Sony actions? You have absolutely no idea what Sony had with Starfield. All you know is what you can Google hahaha. For all we know they had a full version ready to go until MS came in and decided to be anti-consumer as usual and suspend development on that platform.
You sound just like lyin Phil Spencer, just saying random words that have no meaning lol

SierraGuy77d ago

What about elder scrolls?

Crows9077d ago

If you honestly believe they weren't developing starfield for PlayStation, the console they make the most money on, then you are totally more delusional than I originally thought. Take that fanboyism a notch down and maybe you'll be able to think clearly.

Obscure_Observer77d ago

@SoulWarrior @shinoff2183 @Vengeance1138 @Crows90


I don´t give a damn about whatever crazy conspiracy theory you fanatical and delusional bunch chose to believe.

I rather deal with the reality as presented...

Does Sony have any signed contract with Bethesda regarding Starfield?
Does Sony have any e-mail by Bethesda confirming that Starfield was coming to PS5?
Does Sony have any legal case against Microsoft regarding Starfield?

No? Then STFU! You and Sony both got nothing! Take you L, find someplace worm to cry and moan or grow some pair and just buy an Xbox or PC if you want that game so bad.

Have you see me crying and bitching over FFXVI exclusivity to Playstation consoles? No! Because I´ll just go out and buy me a PS5 and play it if I want to play it on a console!

Xbox is not meant to have everything, nor Playstation! It is what it is! Get over it! XD