Sony Argues Microsoft Made Starfield & Elder Scrolls 6 Xbox-Exclusive After ZeniMax Acquisition

Sony has argued in its response to the CMA's provisional findings that Microsoft made Starfield and The Elder Scrolls 6 Xbox-exclusive after the Bethesda acquisition despite these properties being announced as multi-platform releases. Sony claims that this behavior is a better indicator of Microsoft's plans for Activision Blizzard's IPs than the Minecraft situation.

[SullysCigar]

Looking forward to hearing from anyone who thinks these wouldn't have been on PlayStation had it not been for MS purchase of Bethesda. I can't find a good angle to suggest this, so let's hear it.

[SoulWarrior]

They'll give you the usual rumour that Sony tried to get Starfield first and that pLaTfOrMs WeRE nEvEr AnNoUnCeD, as if the games would skip PS for no reason when Bethesda games released and sold better on PS for years lol

[gangsta_red]

Ah yes, the old "GamEz sOlD BetTeR oN pS" excuse, as if they sold zero on Xbox.

[Lightning77]

"They'll give you the usual rumour that Sony tried to get Starfield first and that pLaTfOrMs WeRE nEvEr AnNoUnCeD, "

Deathloop and Ghost were timed. Starfield being 10x mote hyped than both those games yeah Sony definitely wanted that game to them selves.

Like how Stellar Blade was announced for Xbox and is suddenly a PS exclusive now?

[Obscure_Observer]

@Lightning77

"Like how Stellar Blade was announced for Xbox and is suddenly a PS exclusive now?"

So true. Sony´s hypocrisy knows no bounds! The only reason they hadn´t tried and made Starfield a permanent PS5 exclusive is because they simply didnt had the kind of money to pull that off.

Pretty sure Todd Howard himself warned Phil Spencer about Sony´s disgusting sneaky attempt to make HIS game, another PS5 timed-exclusive. Phil had enough of Sony´s scumbag practices and blocked Bethesda from ever talk to that clown Jim Ryan again.

Piece of sh!t had it coming for a long time, blocking even in-game content from ever coming to Xbox gamers since the PS3 era. What goes around comes around. Period!

[ApocalypseShadow]

Yeah observer. Sony's so sneaky with winning generations, making more quality exclusives, making better hardware, winning more awards, making money for third party developers, making high fidelity VR.

Sony and Jim are so sneaky whipping Microsoft's ass over and over that Microsoft had to pull out that checkbook because they can't hang with companies that are worth less.

[GhostScholar]

Hate to break it to you but those aren’t rumors. They’ve been substantiated a number of times. Not to mention Sony has done the same thing they’re complaining about with their square deal.

[zypher]

@gangsta_red

No one said they sold zero on Xbox. Just pointing out how Bethesda IPs would obviously still be on PlayStation (where they generally sold the most) if not for the MS buyout.

[S2Killinit]

@gangsta
Oh yes the old fact that they sold better on PlayStation. Yes, that fact.

[Profchaos]

Platforms have not been announced is not a good argument as they always build a game to a target platform look at fallout 4 my money is on the PS4 being the target platform given the performance issues on the og x1.

And that target is decided super early in development

[shinoff2183]

Gangsta red

As you ignore what the main point was. You got to triggered by someone saying games sell better on ps

Obscure

How tf do you guys just continuously overlook ms shady practices. Like buying publishers , having 3rd party exclusives to, the 90s, 00s. Come on. Sony buying a studio isn't on the same level as ms buying publishers. Sorry Sony buying insomniac means the new ratchet and clank games won't be on xbox(they never were) see the difference. Just about every ms purchase , it was studios that made games for multiple consoles.

Keep ignoring that and crying about Sony s 3rd party exclusives while you play ms 3rd party exclusives. Wtf man

[gangsta_red]

@zypher and Shinoff

Can anyone of you guarantee that if Bethesda (Zenimax) wasn't purchased that those games (Starfield, ESO 6, Fallout 5) would have been on Xbox anyways?

Here's what I find hilarious, some of you go out of your way to make the excuse of "games sold better" on PS, when a game is excluisve to PS or Sony makes a deal to keep a game off Xbox, so with this logic, it's not out of the realm of possibility that Bethesda may have went with Playstation exclusivity? Since those games sold better on Playstation amiright?

I mean we have examples of FF, which have all been on Xbox, so has Silent Hill and yet now those are exclusive to PS. One could say the same would have been for Starfield and any other future title from Bethesda...since Bethesda games sold better on PS.

But sure Shinoff keep making up unwritten rules that buying publishers isn't fair or not the same as Sony buying games, the only one constantly crying about what MS does in comparison is you.

[babadivad]

You typing it silly doesn't change the fact that Sony did try to buy exclusivity. If they had gotten it, not a single Sony Bot on this site would have shed a tear. They just would have celebrated another Sony exclusive while shouting "XBOX HAS NO GAAAAAMEZZZZ!!!"

[Godmars290]

@gangsta_red:
"the old "GamEz sOlD BetTeR oN pS" excuse"

???
Isn't the point of that excuse is that they sold *better* on the more popular platform? Yes games sell on the less popular platform, but if that's 49% of sales, you're still losing or gambling that the loss of 51% will be made up. Somehow.

[zypher]

@gangsta_red

“Can anyone of you guarantee that if Bethesda (Zenimax) wasn't purchased that those games (Starfield, ESO 6, Fallout 5) would have been on Xbox anyways?”

WTH are you talking about? The status quo was always that major games by Bethesda (those not financially fronted by a console maker) would be multiplatform. There’s no reason to assume Starfield would've been any different, especially since consoles weren’t announced during the games reveal.

But then, MS’ $7billion happened.

[seanpitt23]

The only way Microsoft can win any generation is by buying all the competition and making them all exclusives and putting them on day one pass, then gamers have no option other than to buy an Xbox or pc.. that’s the game-plan and they have the money to do it!
Is it right of course not buying zenimax is one thing but buying Activision is a whole new kettle of fish.. who will be next?
Completion is always good it makes companies push harder nobody gets lazy and complacent we don’t want Microsoft to buy everything up they should make there own dev studios they have the money to do it but obviously lack the talent.

[gangsta_red]

@zypher

"...especially since consoles weren’t announced during the games reveal."

So no consoles were announced...MS buys Bethesda...making Bethesda a first party developer and you guys are shocked and appalled that it's not coming out on PS...you guys slay me.

The status quo was always that FF games and Silent Hill games released on Xbox but then Sony happened.

SF 4 was super popular on Xbox 360, but then Sony stepped in for SF V

My point, which no one seems to be addressing is not one of you can gaurantee that Starfield or any future game from Bethesda would have been on Xbox considering Sony's recent aggressive exclusive deals with third parties.

Furthermore and pretty much this...it doesn't matter what would obviously be on what. This reality we live in is MS bought Bethesda and Bethesda is now a first party developer, making games for Xbox. Can't be any more cut and dry than this.

Why even ask if a game "would have been" on PlayStation?

[DarXyde]

Obscure_Observer,

"Piece of sh!t had it coming for a long time, blocking even in-game content from ever coming to Xbox gamers since the PS3 era. What goes around comes around. Period!"

That goldfish memory never fails. Must have forgotten about Lost Planet, GTAIV and its DLC, The Last Remnant, and Tales of Vesperia.

[Neonridr]

we all know that it was more than likely, based on every single Bethesda game releasing on Sony systems in the past, but ES6 is so far away that you couldn't even make a claim for anything there.

[Extermin8or3_]

You could the original trailer had ps and xbox logos on the splash screen as did starfield. Starfield was in active development for ps5 and Microsoft basically shut that down and moved the devs to other parts of the game rather than ensuring they had a working ps5 build.

[Asplundh]

@Extermin
Not saying that these games weren't planned for Playstation at one point, but the original trailers did not have any system logos.

https://youtu.be/tBdMOhrr_x...
https://youtu.be/OkFdqqyI8y...

[gangsta_red]

I'm looking forward to hearing from anyone on why this should be on Playstation now that MS has purchased Bethesda.

I can't find any other instances on where this has ever happened where a first party studio is required to release games on competing platforms.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

Obviously now that own them Microsoft can do whatever they want with their titles and should make it exclusive because that's in their best interest and they have no obligation to make them multiplat.

The point is that the same will happen once they acquire Activision. They have no obligation to continue release Activision games on any platform once they own them. Microsoft is taking games away.

[Neonridr]

@Outside - while they have no obligation, it's in their best interest to release games like Call of Duty on other platforms. Tons of revenue generation. Nobody is buying an Xbox just for CoD. Might as well take advantage of the other market.

[gangsta_red]

@outside

"The point is that the same will happen once they acquire Activision."

I completely agree, except for the fact that MS has stated on paper and to every law maker that Call of Duty, the only game Sony seems concerned about, will remain multiplatform for what the specified time agreed upon. And MS has honored every past obligation before, so there's no reason they wouldn't continue to do so.

Sony has not expressed interest in any other game from Activision, (which I find strange) so why should MS continue to release those games for PS?

[crazyCoconuts]

Ok here's a reason they should be on PS:
MS told regulators they would be

[darkrider]

Because the games were already in deep in development and they just canned millions in investment because of Microsoft, that doesn't want those games on Sony machines even if they don't have any impact in any games...

A clear move to take games from millions of players. All the fake talk Microsoft is saying now....

This is not happening with the Activision deal and that's why all the PR moves from Microsoft to get the deal done. The game will reach more gamers and pr talk like that. Just big fat lies.

[gangsta_red]

@darkrider

"Because the games were already in deep in development and they just canned millions in investment because of Microsoft..."

How do you know this? For all you know, the negotiations to acquire Zenimax were being made when development for Starfield was early or mid. And Elder Scrolls 6 hasn't even began full development yet.

"A clear move to take games from millions of players."

A clear move for competition between two companies, the same way each company does with their third party timed or permanent exclusives deals.

We all complained MS needed more first party studios and games....well here it is.

@crazycocnuts

"MS told regulators they would be"

No, they didn't.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

@gangsta_red

"Sony has not expressed interest in any other game from Activision, (which I find strange) so why should MS continue to release those games for PS?"

If they own Activision they shouldn't release it on PS unless they are going full 3rd party. Hence why Sony and others want the acquisition stopped so that all games remain where they are. Sony is using CoD as a talking point to get the acquisition stopped because it's a huge IP, it's not necessarily that they only care about that game.

@Neonridr

"it's in their best interest to release games like Call of Duty on other platforms. Tons of revenue generation. Nobody is buying an Xbox just for CoD. Might as well take advantage of the other market."

You can make that argument for any game Microsoft currently owns.

[gangsta_red]

@Outside
"Sony is using CoD as a talking point to get the acquisition stopped because it's a huge IP"

I know you're referring to the article of Jim saying he doesn't care about CoD, he just wants to stop the merger. But that's complete BS. Sony has only made it about CoD, why only use that as a talking point when Activision has many more prominent IPs like Doom, WoW and Candy Crush that could have made a better case against MS along with CoD. These titles bring in just as many users and revenue the same as CoD does.

And because he's using that as his only talking point, he's basically handing MS the approval since this is the only game these regulators are focusing on being on other platforms.

[Extermin8or3_]

By your logic in your other comments it's in microsofts interest not to release their AAA titles on games pass day 1 because of all the sales and revenue they subsequently miss out on which is not compensated for by the subscriptions to games pass. You are talking hundreds of millions lost income for a title like halo that cost 500 million to make.... but they still put it on games pass and ate the costs....

[gangsta_red]

@Extermin8or3_

How is that my logic?

Where are you getting the hundreds of lost income data from? You don't seem to understand that the reason most, if not all companies are getting into the Live Service, Subscription service model is because retail cannot sustain profits alone. Not every game is going to pull in GoW, GTA numbers, especially new IPs or smaller non triple A games, but the budgets to make those games are only going up, so it makes sense to have guaranteed income of a monthly/yearly service and it's obvious that a service that offers more games will have more subscribers which will generate more revenue and won't taper off in a new release second or third week.

Especially when CoD could be on GP and have a significant increase in GP subscribers alone, enough to where MS could take a hit on their console/PC side but more than make up for it because of the millions plus that subscribe monthly/yearly, not to mention the DLC, MTX that would come along with CoD that I'm sure makes Activision millions alone, also figure in CoD being sold on other platforms that MS has agreed to a 10 year deal with.

Not to mention the absolute deal gamers would be getting with GP, which is another topic

[OptimusDK]

@ outside_ofthe_box
Besiddes the fact that MS offeret Sony a 10 year deal to get COD

[shinoff2183]

MLB the show

[wiz7191]

@Outside Well the difference between Starfield and COD is , one’s generates hundreds of millions and always been a multi platform title the other is a brand new IP that has to prove itself. The obligation to keep it multi platform is millions of dollars , why would they take COD away from PS ?? They’re trying to make the $60B back lol not lose it. Making COD would be backwards and they know that , Sony just doesn’t want them to have that kind of revenue coming in and shit I don’t blame them. Other Activision IPs might can be exclusive , but what have they been doing with them these days anyway other than COD. COD will never see exclusivity NEVER , COD isn’t a tilte people are going to be switching consoles over.

[Seraphim]

you know what else you won't find. An example of a console manufacturer buying a major 3rd party publisher. So it's absolutely asinine to say that you can't find other instances....

My problem is that MS has had over 2 decades to build studios, partnerships, make acquisitions of studios, create IPs, etc, but have not once given two shits about software. If MS had actually cared to build out the infrastructure and software to entice gamers into their ecosystem they never would've felt forced into having buying a major publisher [x2] just to compete. They made their bed, they should've slept in it.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

SF5 and FF7 remake might have been on Xbox if Sony didn’t make deals to make them exclusive. I’m sure there are lot of games that would have been multi platform but ultimately weren’t due to various deals.

[mocaak]

Like Stalker 2, Dead Rising 3 and 4, Titanfall, Rise of the Tomb Raider, Biosohock?

[shinoff2183]

Blue dragon, lost odyssey, last remnant, infinite undiscoverey , lost planet, oblivion maybe, Ninja Gaiden, dead rising 1, LA di di da da da. Ms plays the 3rd party exclusives game. The list goes on man

O and tales of vesperia, they made a deal so it couldn't be released on ps3 in the west.

[DarXyde]

As I understand it, SFV would have never happened if Sony didn't step in.

I don't know about Final Fantasy VIIR. Maybe, but it also feels like Square honoring the tech demo down off years ago for PS3. They got around Versus XIII by making it XV, and XVI might just be Square owing PlayStation an exclusive AAA Final Fantasy.

Honestly, who knows? Who really knows?

[porkChop]

No one has suggested that Starfield *wouldn't* have been on PS. Obviously it would have been. But that fact is irrelevant. In legal terms something can't be "taken away" unless it was actually announced as coming to that platform. MS said they would honour all existing agreements and promises, and they did exactly that. If Bethesda had announced Starfield's target platforms then Starfield would still be releasing on PS.

[Abracadabra]

Certain people were always complaining the Xbox didn't have exclusives... now, Xbox are getting exclusives. Those same people are now complaining they want those exclusives on their console.

* Facepalm *

[shinoff2183]

It's how they did it. Keep using that logic if u want. It's how they did it most of us take issue with

[1Victor]

@sully: “ Looking forward to hearing from anyone who thinks these wouldn't have been on PlayStation had it not been for MS purchase of Bethesda.”
You’re wasting your time I can tell you from close to 22 years working closely with the public that you can make a Neón sign the size of the moon pointing to a door saying “DO NOT ENTER” and they’ll claim not to see it 🤦🏿

[Obscure_Observer]

"Looking forward to hearing from anyone who thinks these wouldn't have been on PlayStation had it not been for MS purchase of Bethesda."

Nobody said those games wouldn´t be released on Playstation if Microsoft hadn´t acquired Bethesda.

What I remember people saying (me included) is that those games was never officially announced for Playstation before Bethesda acquisition and as such, never in development for PS5. Nevermind TESVI that is early in development and FAR from be released.

What I want from Sony is proof that those games were in development for Playstation before Bethesda´s acquisition.

[notachance]

lol this dude heavily berated Sony for things MS has also done while keeping silent when it’s MS doing it.

dude probably doesn’t realise fanboys like him are the one enabling MS to be this mediocre even with all that money.

[Mcardle]

If Microsoft paid for exclusivity like Sony had FF16 I guess 🤷

[shinoff2183]

To bad I can't play stalker 2 on my ps the day it releases. You see that works both ways jerky

[blackbeld]

I always wish to play COD in VR but when this deal goes through it won’t be happening ever….. So this is not good for all of us. It’s not good for Xbox or playstation gamers.

[SullysCigar]

While I agree, PSVR2 already has Pavolv (which is awesome - and mods inbound) and Firewall Ultra, Sierra Squad and Ghosts of Tabor just around the corner. That's off the top of my head, so there's bound to be more and the headset has only just launched. COD would have been great, but we don't need it and there's lots of choice and diversity of military shooters already on the way.

That said, I'd take MAG or SOCOM in VR!

[JackBNimble]

I thought starfield and anything Bethesda makes is buggy shit show of a mess?
At least that's what you Sonybois keep saying.
So now you Sonybois can't live without these games?

Sony pays plenty of 3rd party dev's to keep games exclusive to playstation. I think if MS buys a studio, then they can do what they want. It's not like Sony has never done this before.

[SullysCigar]

"I thought starfield and anything Bethesda makes is buggy shit show of a mess?" - well, you thought right.

You really need to learn to read and reply to comments according to their content, as your reply bore no relevance to my comment.

[COS]

Not sure you point, of course they would have been on Playstation. In case you forgot, MS made no promises to make these games multiplatform.

MS has guaranteed, in case you are confused by the definition, look it up in the Dictonary. For 10 years it would have Parity with MS on COD. Sony's CEO basically stated, it doesn't want Call of Duty, it wants to block the deal. They are the company who is signing exclusivity deals for earlier access to content and games. They are the ones who are paying off 3rd parties preventing them from puting their games on MS Cloud Gaming Services.

So this type of anti-competitive behavior is acceptable?

Sony does not have a leg to stand on objecting at this point. They can only come up with crybaby claims that MS will sabotage their version. Even 3rd Party are supporting Xbox

End of the day Sony is going to lose this one and MS will still put call of duty on PS, just like Minecraft. Competition is great isn't it?

[Zeref]

They never said Starfield or Elder Scrolls 6 was gonna be on Playstation.
That was probably the intention of Bethesda but then Microsoft acquired them. So no they won't come to Playstation anymore.

CoD is a different case. It's too big. Just like Minecraft.

[SullysCigar]

That is literally what Sony has said.

[Wrex369]

They aren't exclusive though just console exclusive. PC exists

[DarXyde]

That goes without saying, and I agree with you... Buuuut devil's advocate: I can also see the point that Bethesda struggles to get ONE version of games running optimally. Would they be better off focused on one console and PC? I mean, yeah, it's normally easier... But I suspect development for Series S and X is probably more difficult than PS5 and Series X.

Even so, Microsoft wants all games on both so this is probably the path of least resistance.

In a microcosm, fair enough. It's their studio and if they want to keep them off PlayStation, I mean... They're allowed to do that. We'll have to see how the community responds when these games launch. Either people will but into their ecosystem, they'll boycott it, or nothing changes. Well see.

The whole point here is not even Bethesda. The argument is Sony is using this to express that they have similar concerns with Call of Duty. Rightly so. Microsoft is not willing to split the IP from the acquisition and their commitment to a deal is clearly an effort to invite me negotiations in a decade. Microsoft is also extremely wealthy and could, in theory, buy out the contract immediately after acquisition.

It goes without saying that Sony is far more successful in this space. They likely know what they're talking about here.

[Neonridr]

both the XSX and PS5 are x86 architecture. This isn't the 360 vs PS3 (Power PC vs Cell) or anything like that. Both are based off of PC architecture now, nobody is going to struggle to get a game up and running (save for the Series S with it's limitations).

[DarXyde]

Neonridr,

I know that. You missed my point.

"But I suspect development for Series S and X is probably more difficult than PS5 and Series X."

I'm saying that developing a game for both Xbox platforms is probably more difficult than developing a game for just the Series X and PS5. The latter consoles have more in common than the Series consoles have with each other in terms of hardware configuration.

[darkrider]

@gangsta red, microsoft needed games, very true, but all this games would be on Microsoft consoles. I think you and others dont understand the point....

Microsoft gamers arent getting a single new game, microsoft is just taking games from the other platforms.

So, microsoft still doesn't have a single new game... Scary stuff... All of this just hide the fact that the other 16 or 18 studios made by Microsoft didn't deliver....

[gangsta_red]

"Microsoft gamers arent getting a single new game, microsoft is just taking games from the other platforms."

These are very thin arguments.

Microsoft is getting new games, Starfield is a new game, Hi Fi Rush is a new game, Pentiment is a new game, Grounded is a new game, there's still Avowed, Contraband and more on the horizon, how is that even a relevant point stating "it would have been on MS consoles" anyways?

Can you make that same guarantee for the new Silent Hill game? How about the latest Final Fantasy? Final Fantasy Remake? What about Octopath Traveler 2? How can you say they were always coming to Xbox when Sony has as of late been aggressively securing third party games off of Xbox and even blocking them from GP.

"...microsoft is just taking games from the other platforms."

No they're not, they're securing games on a platform that was known for not having any games from a vocal rabid fanbase, now that same fanbase is moving goal posts and saying "no fair"! You can't have your cake and eat it too. You want MS to have exclusives and compete, this is how they're doing it.

"All big ip are made by Sony studios... "

Yes, studios that Sony bought, studios that were once making games for all platforms and not exclusively for Playstation. Sony had the luxury of purchasing great studios at a time where the gaming industry was still young and not as mature as it now.

[darkrider]

Microsoft gamers didn't get any game that it wouldn't get. There no spin there. All those games would come to series console.

The FFvii talk just shows how you don't understand the background of that game. It was never a Xbox game... Google to understand.

Timed exclusive isn't the same.

Microsoft had more then time to do the same and it couldn't even handle the studios it had...

[Crows90]

"Microsoft is getting new games, Starfield is a new game, Hi Fi Rush is a new game, Pentiment is a new game, Grounded is a new game, there's still Avowed, Contraband and more on the horizon, how is that even a relevant point stating "it would have been on MS consoles" anyways?"

Its a point because all those games were already going to come out. Maybe not all of them but definitely most.
"No they're not, they're securing games on a platform that was known for not having any games from a vocal rabid fanbase, now that same fanbase is moving goal posts and saying "no fair"! You can't have your cake and eat it too. You want MS to have exclusives and compete, this is how they're doing it."

No fair?? This isnt about fairness this is about common sense. Everybody I know wants Microsoft to compete but not by taking away multiplatform IP and nobody likes any timed crap either so thats not an excuse. Gamers should unite on this issue so more have access to the same games...instead you got the typical offenders actually happy that games that were obviously going to release on playstation have been removed.

"Yes, studios that Sony bought, studios that were once making games for all platforms and not exclusively for Playstation. Sony had the luxury of purchasing great studios at a time where the gaming industry was still young and not as mature as it now."

They were not great studios necessarily and at that time it was great risk and investment in an industry nowhere near as big as today. How come lionhead failed? Rare? Even 343 and gears devs....All these developers were decent or good...but how is it that all of them are quite irrelevant now?

[gangsta_red]

@Darkrider

"It was never a Xbox game... Google to understand."

And Starfield was never a Playstation game, glad we have an understanding.

"Timed exclusive isn't the same."

lol, of course it isnt... and buying a developer or publisher and making their games exclusive because (wait for it) they are now a first party developer isn't the same either.

So in hindsight, with the information we now have, you are correct, MS gamers will get Starfield.

@Crows
"Its a point because all those games were already going to come out. Maybe not all of them but definitely most."

So maybe not all, and maybe some, and maybe a little, lol, you guys slay me on what you think would have happened in comparison to what actually is happening. Maybe I'll win the lotto, do you guys happen to have the numbers for next week since you all are so sure on what the future holds, and which games would and wouldn't be coming to Xbox?

"They were not great studios necessarily and at that time it was great risk and investment in an industry nowhere near as big as today"

that is definitely not true, and this is a weak excuse if I ever read one. How does that even relate to my point of Sony buying third party studios and making them develop games exclusively for Playstation? How about games those companies were working that were then switched to PS?

"How come lionhead failed? Rare? Even 343 and gears devs"

How come Zipper Interactive failed? Bend? 343's Halo: I sits on a 87 Metacritic, Coalition Gears 5 is a masterclass sitting on 84, all these devs are still good, it's only your own perception that says otherwise.

[Obscure_Observer]

"So, microsoft still doesn't have a single new game... Scary stuff... All of this just hide the fact that the other 16 or 18 studios made by Microsoft didn't deliver...."

How it´s scary if Phil started the acquisitions/creation of new first party studios back in June 2018?

Modern AAA games takes at least 5 years to be developed from the ground up. That´s why Sony only got Spiderman 2 this year.

That´s the very reason why *so far* future PS5 first party games lineup looks like a blank page.