The game's creative director, Harvey Smith talks about the impact of the acquisition of Bethesda by Microsoft in 2021, right during the development of Redfall.
So it was in development for PS5, Microsoft purchased Bethesda and then cancelled PS5 version. That's not a good look from a trust perspective, bearing in mind where they're at with the ABK acquisition..
^ @Lightning77, Development started the year BEFORE the acquisition. Microsoft then came in and told them to ditch PS5.
First of all, that's hardly in line with what Phil has claimed about not "liking exclusives", because that's "not what gaming's about", or his claims to the regulatory bodies that he just wants to get these games to as many players as possible, is it..?
Secondly, who spends millions of dollars over the course of more than a year on development for a platform...without a contract?
"That's not a good look from a trust perspective"... how so? The game wasnt under obligation / contract like deathloop was. Now if they canceled Deathloop after it was announced, then sure it would be a bad look. That was not the case with this though. Plus I'd imagine there would be grounds for a lawsuit over breech of contract, again that is not the case here.
To your last part about who does work without a contract... you'd be surprised that in order to be granted a contract there are those who need something to pitch the idea. Lets assume they got far enough to that point but didnt get to pitch it because by then MS bought Zenimax. Now they didnt have to worry about a contract to budget the remainder of the game. MS would cover that automatically.
"Secondly, who spends millions of dollars over the course of more than a year on development for a platform...without a contract?"
Sony. Otherwise MS would honor Redfall´s deal with Playstation just like they did with GWT and Deathloop.
And in case you don´t know or forgot, GWT will be getting a massive update on PS5 so don´t tell me MS is not honoring prior Bethesda/Playstation deals.
@Darth agreed. Just got done reading about an update to a game I backed on Kickstarter. Progress is going good, but still no publisher yet and they are working on polishing the demo to attract a publisher (hence the Kickstarter). It does take money and time to show you have something. You can't just pitch the idea to them and expect it to be greenlighted.
Trust perspective? It wasn't a good look for Sony either when they did it to Sega many years ago. If you didn't know , sony used to pay to keep games off of Sega's console. Gamers can be so hypocritical sometimes.
"First of all, that's hardly in line with what Phil has claimed about not "liking exclusives", because that's "not what gaming's about", or his claims to the regulatory bodies that he just wants to get these games to as many players as possible, is it..?"
What you're talking about is COD not Redfall. Two different games and situations. Jim isn't fighting for Redfall or any other Bethesda game. Plus even if he did care so much about Bethesda why didn't he oppose that merger from. The beginning?
Yep and he can do just that with PC, Steam, Xcloud, Epic game store even Boosteroid if he wanted to.
Plenty of places to put it not exclusive only to Xbox.
***In this case there was no contracts to be honored with Sony like DL and GW.***
It's still not a good look considering Microsoft's whole thing is claiming they will make games available to more people and this proves that false considering Redfall is dropping a large portion of the gamers. With them spending the money they are to control some of the most valuable third-party IPs, this is the thing that the agencies are looking to ensure it's not anti-competitive. And part of that is how Microsoft would control the IPs, withhold it from existing player bases that tend to experience those games, let alone the more popular fanbase.
Why don't gamers just have both consoles and shut up? I had SNES and Genesis, PS 1 and N64. I have always had the top 2 consoles! People need to get over it.
Senuas Sacrifice released had 8 minutes of gameplay released, and it looks incredible!
Don't want an Xbox? Play on PC! You don't need to have a powerful PC, but good internet would help. You can stream them for gosh sake!
I have PS5 and I can't stream any PS5 games! Watch People disagree. I don't care. I can cross save Xbox games to my PC, and even my phone.
"Xbox has no games" now a bunch are coming out, PC and Series owners aren't complaining!
"It's still not a good look considering Microsoft's whole thing is claiming they will make games available to more people and this proves that false"
They have its on everything with the exception of Sony and even Nintendo. withhold it from existing player bases that tend to experience those
"withhold it from existing player bases that tend to experience those"
Because they own those franchises. They can do as they please. It's not as bad as keeping 3rd party games off other platform by calling it "timed" when it's not timed.
Tell that Sony who paid to keep Stellar Blade off Xbox. A game that was announced as a multiplatform. Funny how I always bring that up and yet nobody has an answer for it.
@Chris Btw nice of you to ignore my pm. You just marked me as inappropriate for no reason in the redfall article.
***Why don't gamers just have both consoles and shut up? I had SNES and Genesis, PS 1 and N64. I have always had the top 2 consoles! People need to get over it.***
Stop being poor! Dang it people. Boostraps it!
***They have its on everything with the exception of Sony and even Nintendo. withhold it from existing player bases that tend to experience those***
Yes, and if you're paying attention, that's fewer gamers than if Bethesda would release the game on the platforms it had initially planned for. So, like I said, the opposite of what Microsoft is claiming. Thank you.
In development is general and we have no idea how far. That being said, MS made no commitment to offer all Bethesda games on Sony. It has no relevance to ABK as it happened well before ABK. Apparetly SullyCigar knows how much they spent, so ask him lol
@ SullysCigar - contracts only exist when a deal is made. 3rd party publishers/developers don't need a contract to develop a game for consoles or PC. This is also why you often see smaller teams focus on one platform, because they don't have the funding to develop their game for multiple consoles. For major 3rd party publishers there is ample funding so they choose which consoles to release the game on, and begin development, though, obviously there's more to it before even going into development.
It's still a bad look, especially considering the comments Phil has made.
Hmmm, you have to wonder what the devs think about this. Redfall was never going to be a system seller so they've just cut a huge chunk of potential sales.
Devs don't get to choose...they've been bought and their opinions were most definitely not taken into account... Higher ups exchanged hands that's all.
@Obscure: Who's going to buy it on Steam or Epic when game pass is available on PC? Everyone will play the game for €1 and that will be that, whereas a PS release could have generated some kind of revenue from actual sales. I don't know how anyone thinks this model is sustainable or good for the industry.
Well, in the interview the creative director speculates that it may be their biggest game due to the number of people who may play it on gamepass. Of course that still largely depends on the quality of the title whether people will give it the time of day.
The so called amount of hypocrites are typically representative of the amount of people who chose to buy a ps5 over a series console. Get used to getting 8 disagrees for every agree. Besides that the amount of trash being spouted by the MS supporters deserve all these disagrees. Whether you like it or not the trade commissions will take this scenario into account.
@Hofstaderman what scenario?? Redfall isn’t COD .. Redfall is a new IP , regardless Bethesda needed to go multi platform to survive at one point .. Now they don’t since they are backed by MS , that’s the difference. The irony about this is where’s the FF remake at ?? Sony doesn’t even own them but blocking Square from releasing it on XBOX. That exclusive contract been up for two years now , still no game. Why is Silent Hill going to be exclusive ? When Xbox got SH 2 and 3. At lease MS
I bet it was a single-player thinker shooter originally like Prey and MS bought it and said "hey, why don't we make this GaaS!?" and Arkane said "No!" and then MS said "Okay, we need to compromise here, so co-op multiplayer with always online at the very least (or we fire you)" and they said "Okay, fine. (I wish Sony bought us...)". Then, the abomination called Redfall was born. This is coming from a Arkane fan boy, and someone who liked Harvey Smith's work before.
This is only surprising to select few who I believe themselves weren't in totally buying their own lies
Same will happen with Activision acquisition. Most unannounced games will be quietly cancelled and we will find out only when someone leaks it. Sony would do the same if they bought Capcom or square enix. Logically when you pay billions for something you want to gain the benefits
Only issue I have is how certain people get on their high horses and talk a big game yet do the complete opposite. Phil was always talking against exclusives, timed exclusives and exclusive dlc yet his actions have the same consequences
Ask yourself this though
After Activision who's next and who's buying who? Gamers now a days don't think about long term ramifications of what's going on today
That's why I believe that Activision along with any publishers being bought should be rejected by that's not pro consumer
Here here some sense and well after activision the regulators won't be allowing MS a third publisher... not unless they are rescuing one that has gone broke. So I think Sony have no incentive to buy square as they have alot of agreements with them anyway. Ubisoft has been struggling and is looking rather cheap and word is EA have been looking to be bought because its board and investors are grubby, greedy pricks. I'd say ubisoft would be the better bet with Sony as the purchaser. Ofc there is that rumour that Sony would go after take two- it would cost them but tbh that's the one to have after activision. GTA and Red dead redemption are such big franchises and they fit in well with PlayStation other offerings. I also wouldn't be shocked to see Sony purchase developers from publishers... I think they need a studio capable of making western rpg's imo.
And so what . It was only a year into development now Microsoft is funding development until the game is completed .. they wasn’t funding it first now they’re so why would they make it multi plat ??? Where’s Bloodborne at ?? FromSoftware is a third party studio. Where’s FF7 remake ? Square again is a multi plat studio. Why is Silent Hill going to be exclusive ?? Sony only fans are a bunch of hypocrites. At lease MS are making game exclusive that THEY ARE FUNDING 100% , I don’t see Bungie next game being multi plat .. and same for Insomniac , after making a game for Xbox they got bought and the next game is exclusive .. Spider man ring bells ??
Phil doesn't like 3rd party exclusives. They bought Bethesda and Redfall has never been on a Sony platform...it became a Microsoft exclusive. That's different than COD having been multiplatform. I doubt Sony is going to start putting it's games on Xbox to show regulators it plays fair unlike Microsoft. Lol.
Everyone knows this, same with starfield. I don't know if either were officially announced for PS5 before the Zenimax sale went through. Games like Deathloop and Ghostwire had their contracts honored so maybe the other two weren't announced beforehand?
None of them were officially announced for PS5. There was no obligation from Bethesda to keep production on a game on another console after the company was bought by MS.
I think the key take away is that if a company has the cash to buy exclusives from its competition (potentially the majority of the industry), and has shown they want to, it could be a problem for said industry. Promising to give their competition some support isn't necessarily a sufficient consolation prize either. What happens down the road? What if they gimp Playstation versions? Etc.
"if a company has the cash to buy exclusives from its competition (potentially the majority of the industry), and has shown they want to, it could be a problem for said industry."
Not sure if you're referring to Sony with this line, because in this instance, MS has bought an entire publisher and has made their future games exclusive to the Xbox platforms. Sony has been actively buying third party games and making them timed exclusives or straight up exclusives.
I really don't understand why all of a sudden other people, especially on this site are now having a hard time understanding how first party studios function. We all know that first party developers make games for the platform holders that own them. There were special cases with Zenimax where contracts were honored, now that those have been fulfilled, they're moving to focus on Xbox.
"What happens down the road? What if they gimp Playstation versions? Etc."
There has been zero evidence of this ever happening between the two, so it doesn't make any type of sense to base discussions off of what if's and maybe's. MS has continued to support Minecraft on all other platforms and hasn't gimped the game for Playstation, they are also releasing the next Minecraft Legends on Playstation.
Sony has also not gimped MLB: The Show even when the game appears day and date on Game Pass. These companies are competing but they would not intentionally sabotage their own game only because it's on another platform.
Not being announced is not the same as not being development, which they very likely were.
Not that it matters at this point. The crime are the hundreds of unannounced titles no one outside their devs teams, the publishers who axed them, no one knows about.
"Not being announced is not the same as not being development, which they very likely were."
It's very much the same. Because there was never a commitment to release on another platform.
And yes, none of this matters because we can ponder what may or may not have been in development from now to the end of time, but the facts are Zenimax is a MS first party development house and they are making games for Xbox platforms. The same way Sony's first party developers make games for the PlayStation platform.
@god, to your comment about "Not being announced is not the same as not being development" we can also say that being in development is not the same as being obligated or contracted. Many games have started development on a platform, even been shown as officially coming but then things change. That stellar blade game comes to mind. The dev changed their focus at some point... it happens.
"None of them were officially announced for PS5. There was no obligation from Bethesda to keep production on a game on another console after the company was bought by MS."
Absolutely. Sony is only getting some of their own medicine. They will not allow their first party games on Xbox, so Phil is doing the right thing to make those games exclusive to Xbox as it should be
"You didn't hear that EA canned an in development TF3?"
Oh, I thought it was Titanfall Legends that was cancelled, not Titanfall 3.
@FlintGREY
I'm sure there was development for it, but that's neither here nor there. The game was never announced to be coming to Playstation and Zenimax/Bethesda was bought by MS making them a first party studio(s). The game is now a first party title coming to Xbox platforms.
And the damagecontrol of Xboxfans is getting hilarious, they been screaming for the rooftops that there where no games in development for the PS5 version...turns out, they where. MS stopped that development and lied to the regulators. So the deal got trough. How do you think that the regulators will ignore that? Now Xboxfans are saying but PSgamers are hating on Redfall during the previews.But that does not matter, right? Thats deflecting a lie, and trying to sugercoat a lie...
They didn't lie. They never said these games were gonna be on Playstation. All I see are Playstation fans claiming that Microsoft said and did things that they didn't when it comes to the Zenimax/Bethesda acquisition. Even the EU Commission clarified this when the FTC tried to use that as an argument.
No one is debating that. That's common sense even if Phil pretends differently and Xbox fans pretend those changes never happened.
Common sense prevails yet again. Of course all current and some future zenimax games were originally planned for playstation. Xbox of course came in and bought the IP to prevent that and "compete" by making games less available to gamers that were going to get those games.
Originally planned and plans change, especially if a developer is bought by a console maker therefore becoming a first party studio.
You can't complain about MS not having games for Xbox and then turn around and complain that MS isn't releasing their first party games on Playstation.
It's because MS is doing it wrong remember? They're not playing by the imaginary rules of building studios from the ground up in order for it to count as an exclusive.
Sony only nourished Studios only after buying them up originally.
That's what a "real" first party studio is. A company buying a publisher that owns studios including making multiplat games for years is all of a sudden a first party studio is a facade...lol.
Lol like you even cared before about the games before. Im pretty sure you gave to google naughty dogs games before they became first party of Sony's.
Anyway im not fussing about this whole acquisition. But its funny though..ms with all their money couldn't make theirs with endless amount of money they have. I wonder if any of these games fail..Ms will be like "hmm...looks like we have to buy EA and Take2 too."
You can jest like cultivating relationships organically over yrs or decades has no benefit but look the results. Who's first party are more consistent? Look at the growth from Insomniac, Housemarque, Bluepoint, Guerrilla, Sucker Punch, even ND and Santa Monica over the yrs. What MS studio has dramatically improved under the wing of MS? The only one is Playground imo which was the exact type of second party leads to acquisition relationship Sony exercises. Is Halo or Gears in a better place now than it was yrs ago? How's 343? The Initiative? Undead? What's Compulsion doing? What has Ninja Theory done in 4-5 yrs under MS? Has Rare been better since leaving Nintendo? What happened to Lionhead? Take away Bethesda n ABK, take away the spending spree of random studios late last gen and MS is bare. Completely. Their ability to manage studios n organically cultivate relationships is atrocious and it shows. Not to say other pubs are perfect but Nintendo and Sony have certainly had better results and their's a reason.
Also, to act like putting a ring on the finger of 2nd party studios who's games were already exclusive is in any way the same as gobbling up pure multiplat 3rd party devs n pubs is asinine. And MS has invested in the studios they acquire as well. In terms of "nourishment" ofc MS is investing in these studios but the results aren't the same bc MS isn't the same quality of publisher nor do they invest the same time n energy into making sure the acquisitions are the right fit. They just more so toss money around and the results show.
Except nobody is making that imaginary comment you're imposing on PlayStation fans. All they're saying is that it's kinda a bad precedent to start buying 3rd party IP left and right to preven those IP from releasing on competitors platforms. Sony buys timed and those devs are free to release afterwards. They don't because it's not lucrative to release on a platform where they don't sell much.
@lightning77 If the roles were reversed you bet I'd be there attacking Sony for buying or attempting to buy CoD and obviously/inevitably making it exclusive. That shit has no place in the gaming industry. 3rd party multiplatform IP should stay as is. But of course we have Xbox to thank for all the bad trends in gaming.
"If the roles were reversed you bet I'd be there attacking Sony for buying or attempting to buy CoD and obviously/inevitably making it exclusive. That shit has no place in the gaming industry. 3rd party multiplatform IP should stay as is. But of course we have Xbox to thank for all the bad trends in gaming."
You're right but this time, if sony buys a whole publisher...I'll be like well Ms started it. They started with the pay to play online too.
@outsider But you see thats a childish level of maturity and principles. You throw them out the window if someone else does something?
If its bad when one does it...its bad when they all do it. But definitely will be pathetic to see some here even breathe a sigh of frustration if sony decides to buy a publisher and developer like capcom or square enix.
If ABK goes through it changes the rules of engagement imo. I'm not in favor of pub acquisitions but if Sony were to then buy SE i mean...what are they supposed to do if it becomes an arms race? MS, Embracer, Tencent are sailing this thing into unsavory n dangerous waters. Industry consolidation. At some point the likes of Sony will be forced to follow suit. Ofc ppl will call them hypocrits but if the landscape of your industry changes you either adapt, innovate, or die. U can say MS simply acquired these devs/pubs as a response to Embracer/Tencent but it's more likely a response to Sony/support for GP/lack of exclusives.
Yet Playstation fans are claiming Microsoft lied or said things they never said. Even the EU Commission clarified this when the FTC tried use it as an argument for their case. If the roles were reversed no one would be complaining and the Sony would definitely be making it exclusive ASAP. The only reason MBL The Show is multiplatform though Sony makes the game is because Major League Baseball would of pulled the license and forced them to make it multiplatform.
It's comical that u condemn Sony for keeping single games off XB usually for a timed period but u cheer MS acquiring publishers and cancelling in development PS versions and banishing new releases for numerous industry leading IP from PS forever. All bc it's a different business deal. "Acquisition means it's ok to keep games off PS" u are literally cheering for a more extreme version of what u condemn Sony for. Casuals don't care about the minutia, they don't care about the business side, they care that their most anticipated or most beloved IP will never release on their platform. It's wildly hypocritical to cheer the Bethesda/ABK deals and condemn the Final Fantasy or Silent Hill deals for example. Furthermore, pub acquisition doesn't always mean exclusivity look at the Bungie deal. Beyond that, MS went out of their way to cancel in development versions of Redfall n Starfield on PS which i find extreme and petty considering a multiplat release with the sequel being exclusive would make more money n draw PS fans into the sequel/XB ecosystem. It imo makes more sense especially considering XB relies mostly on day 1 GP as opposed to outright exclusivity. In conclusion, MS went out of their way to keep games off PS, tossing time/work in the bin even when it doesn't appear to make business sense yet u completely give them a pass. From a company that plays good guy and preaches "when everyone plays we win" or similar rhetoric. A company who cries about Sony keeping games off XB yet this is the mother of keeping games off a platform. And to excuse it like publisher acquisitions of this nature are common place is total bs. It is literally unprecedented particularly back to back and the only similar example from Sony "Bungie" did not operate in this capacity unless it's merely a long con which both Sony/Bungie would get roasted for or maybe even sued.
You can't cry about keeping games off platforms when your team is doing it with the greatest gusto. These weren't 2nd party studio acquisitions like we see with Housemarque, BP, Insomniac. They aren't timed or exclusivity deals on PS centric games like FF. This is strong arm acquisition of entire industry leading multiplat publishers that will banish massive IP from PS forever. It's not business as usual, it's not common, and it's not helping competition. It's the most extreme example of keeping games off of a platform and the sheer fact that ppl like u attempt to play every angle to your advantage disgusts me. Bad when Sony does it, good when MS does. Tencent/Embracer bad for the industry, MS good. Either u are for industry consolidation which would make u pro Tencent/Embracer as well, or u are against it. Either u are ok with keeping games of certain platforms or not. U cry when other companies do it but cheer when your own does. Comical.
You may not like it, but what he said was technically correct. You can't remove something that was never there. It was never announced for the system and so there was nothing to honor.
He said “we don’t intend to remove game access to gamers” after the Zenimax acquisition, and then said “Bethesda games will release on other platforms on a ‘case by case’ basis” (giving cue to Elder Scrolls and Fallout sequels on PS), to later say “Bethesda games will release where Gamepass is available.”
You’re right from the words of Phill, and nothing can be removed from a platform when a game never released for a platform. Everyone knows that. Everyone knows why a game is cancelled from another platform when purchased by a console manufacturer, new IP or established.
I really did believe MS was going to release Bethesda games on PlayStation post acquisition. MS technically didn’t lie because we have yet to see “case by case” releases, but it’s all so far cancelled on PS. The only Bethesda games that have been released post MS acquisition have been the two games PS had timed exclusively for during development prior to MS. It’s deceiving terminology moving forward
Obviously, it was in development before MS brought them.
Everyone knows this, same with starfield. I don't know if either were officially announced for PS5 before the Zenimax sale went through. Games like Deathloop and Ghostwire had their contracts honored so maybe the other two weren't announced beforehand?
You buy a company, you have the right to make product changes 🤷♂️
Originally planned and plans change, especially if a developer is bought by a console maker therefore becoming a first party studio.
You can't complain about MS not having games for Xbox and then turn around and complain that MS isn't releasing their first party games on Playstation.
Lies of P
Phil Spencer said there was no proof they bought Bethesda and removed games from PlayStation. Phil is a liar