Starfield Was Planned For PS5 Prior To Microsoft's ZeniMax Acquisition, FTC Says

Bethesda's sci-fi RPG would have come to PlayStation if not for Microsoft's acquisition of ZeniMax in 2021, according to the FTC.

Read Full Story >>
Sonic1881164d ago (Edited 164d ago )

Like I said in my last post. Microsoft intentions was to always make Bethesda games Xbox exclusive but they had to say some games will not be an exclusive but case to case basis to finalize the deal. They're using the same strategy with Activision after the buyout and COD and popular games will be an Xbox exclusive which makes sense after acquiring them for 70 billion. I knew FTC was going to try and use Bethesda acquisition as an argument


Extermin8or3_164d ago

Your comment means it's a legit argument for the FTC to make because as you say MS is clearly gonna donthe same thing again.

neutralgamer1992164d ago

I don’t know anything else, but I do know FTC has a really strong case. Especially with CMA also against this acquisition.

giovonni164d ago

@neutralgamer1992 you know for a fact that the FTC has a strong case?

VenomUK164d ago (Edited 164d ago )

This revelation that Starfield was originally intended for release on PlayStation is not a surprise, nevertheless its saddening to see it confirmed as it means when Phil Spencer said "This deal was not done to take games away from another player base like that" his contrary actions mean he was lying. He comes across as a friendly dude, he says the right thing that often chimes with the gaming press and public and they love his down to earth demeanour. I've always found him to be likeable. But if you say one thing and do another then it undermines your credibility and deservedly, based on his past behaviour, some trust his promises about Activision games a little bit less.


ArmrdChaos163d ago (Edited 163d ago )

I find it amusing that many claim they're not exclusive titles if they are available on PC, but when it becomes convenient for the argument they jump on the console exclusive tag. PC and Playstation was the combo we keep hearing about so what exactly in being kept from them? At least Microsoft is making the game available day one. What would have Sony done? Make people wait a year or better? Sony would have done the same exact thing had they the capitol to pull it off, but then it would have been praised as business genius. This isn't the slam dunk most think it is. We'll see.

darthv72163d ago

surprised the FTC didnt hit everyone with these other nuggets of knowledge...
"Halo Was Planned For Mac Prior To Microsoft's Bungie Acquisition"
"Kameo Was Planned For Gamecube Prior To Microsoft's Rare Acquisition"

Zeref163d ago

They will do the same thing again. You're saying that as if it's a bad thing lol.

CoD will be multiplat, they already committed to that publicly.

Anything else is case by case. Are they supposed to not make exclusives or something? 😂

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 163d ago
giovonni164d ago

Are they? Because aren’t there ten year contracts signed that are not only legal binding, and also will bring Activision games to different platforms go against what you just said?

shinoff2183164d ago

There was nothing stopping Activision from bringing their games to those same platforms that ms signed deals with. Some of the companies I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't just offshoots of ms let's be real ms wants monopoly. History repeats itself with ms from back in the 90s.

ABizzel1164d ago (Edited 164d ago )

The CMA report details exactly what MS was trying to do with those 10-year agreements which honestly was one of the most foul contracts I’ve seen in a while. The contracts allowed companies to STREAM CoD, but MS wouldhave the right to all profits from the games during the 10 year agreement, which is absolutely crazy.

The contract make a little sense for all the streaming platforms that agreed since they don’t currently have CoD, as well as, Nintendo since the hardware they produced with the Switch isn’t powerful enough to run modern CoD (Switch 2 maybe), but PS5 would suffer the most if you can physically buy or download a copy of the game on Xbox and PC services like Steam, but forced to Stream on PS, as well as, a best case scenario Sony only gets around 30% for sales for being sold on the PS Store, and maybe a fraction of the in-game purchases if MS allows it on their platform.

That’s why Sony was so against it, and it was one of the points the CMA held against MS in their decision to block this. If MS was truly keeping CoD available on all current and future platforms without ever making them exclusive, I don’t think this deal would have had such a hard time being approved, or is Activision was forced to spin off CoD. But MS has proved time and time again they cannot be trusted based on their word, and ever decade try to create some type of monopoly since the 90s, which they’ve been sued for and lost on all occasions.

Profchaos164d ago

Sad but true if only for the legacy of the games that id software makes imagine a world where Doom is locked behind a single platform rather than trying to run on anything with circuitry.

Abracadabra164d ago

Sony are a cancer in the gaming industry. Their only goal is to kill any competition and be the only high end console available.
Using monopolistic tactics they got huge 3rd party exclusives, that simply would be impossible for others to obtain.

If Sony had their way, they would have made COD and Starfield exclusives, and by that, killing the competition. Microsoft did the only thing they could to save the Xbox...

SeTTriP163d ago

Making good games ain't one of them.

TheKingKratos163d ago

Sony is the Cancer now ?! Lol 😂😂😂

ApocalypseShadow163d ago (Edited 163d ago )

Ridiculous. The opinions expressed to defend Microsoft are on another level of ridiculousness.

2 TRILLION dollars, over 20 years in the business and they can't compete. So, they need or have the right to buy up third parties because Sony made a few games exclusive. Games that would most likely have sold more on PlayStation. Where Xbox gamers wait for game pass but not buy on Xbox because they are too cheap to spend money. Creating the very reason developers go with PlayStation.

These counterpoints you guys make are just beyond rational and logical understanding. Just ridiculous.

Christopher163d ago

***If Sony had their way, they would have made COD and Starfield exclusives,***

Sony would have made COD and Starfield exclusive, but they failed to do that with Bungie? Man, if only it was easy to make up hypothetical outcomes from something that has never happened.

***Microsoft did the only thing they could to save the Xbox...***

So, the only thing to save Xbox is taking games away from others, but Sony is the cancer? Fight cancer with cancer?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 163d ago
+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 163d ago
MrDead164d ago

Well yeah, Sonys platform was their biggest money maker in the console industry. MS has banned Bethesda's games from one of it's biggest revenue streams.

Obscure_Observer164d ago

"MS has banned Bethesda's games from one of it's biggest revenue streams."

As they should. Sony tried to make Starfield exclusive to Playstation and though they could get away with it. If wasn´t for Todd Howard and Phil Spencer, Xbox gamers would be the ones left in the cold right now.

Phil had enough of Sony´s constant scumbag bs schemes after Ghostwire: Tokio and Deathloop exclusive deals for Playstation and just put an end to it once and for all!

Sony´s bs move to try and keep Starfield from Xbox gamers was their last mistake!

Enough is enough!

Crows90164d ago (Edited 164d ago )

Go get em boy!
So let me get this straight...you're fine with Xbox taking it because PlayStation would've taken it otherwise...hmmm

I thought Bethesda and Microsoft had a long time partnership...that was the reason for the purchase as many Xbox fans said....why would they exclude Xbox intentionally if that was the case...unless it was complete BS.

It would've been bad if Sony did it...still bad if Xbox does it.

Both those deals you mention...were temporary ..so Xbox wasn't going to lose on any game assuming another deal would take place.

But I don't see the problem ..aren't you guys fine with these deals???
Get your messaging straight and stop flip flopping.

shinoff2183164d ago (Edited 164d ago )

Tried to make starfield timed exclusive to ps5. Timed is a key word you guys keep forgetting same as ghostwire and deathloop.

Ms is keeping the whole fking game from ps where if I went to ps they wanted Timed. You guys can't keep forgetting that. It's a huge difference. Just like I say I'd take stsrfield a year later on ps. I'd be happy as hell. It'd be fixed , possible free dlc.

Also obscure how did you feel about the scummy practices ms were up to in the 90s with the pc environment, or how about those same scummy third party deals ms had during the 360 Era. Call a spade a spade dog

tay8701164d ago

Lol dude you always Crack me up. MS are even bigger scumbags than sony. Funny you should bring up tokyo ghostwire and desthloop. They actually run better on playststion than they do on MS. Lok. How embarasing
They had a whole yr to port it and they both can't match the ps5 releases. No doubt starfield would have as well, so congratulations on having lesser quality games now. You can be damn sure the same will happen if they get their hands on ABK.

163d ago
Obscure_Observer163d ago


"I thought Bethesda and Microsoft had a long time partnership...that was the reason for the purchase as many Xbox fans said....why would they exclude Xbox intentionally if that was the case...unless it was complete BS."

Todd Howard said NO to Sony´s proposal to make Starfield exclusive and chose to go exclusive with Xbox instead, for life!

So what´s exactly the part that you can´t understand that Todd Howard didn´t gave a f* about Sony´s money? Todd Howard always had a closer relationship with Xbox, he said that himself. Other companies like VALVE and CDPR also have a closer relationship with MS than any other major platform.

So don´t act surprised if any of those companies chose Xbox over Playstation.

"Both those deals you mention...were temporary ..so Xbox wasn't going to lose on any game assuming another deal would take place."

Yeah, like Sony could be trusted. They made FF Remake, Rebirth, XVI, Forspoken, KOTOR, Silent Hill 2, Rise of Ronin and even Stellar Blade which was ANNOUNCED to Xbox, all permanent exclusives! Sony literally PAID Stellar Blade´s developers to ever release that game on Xbox.

So yeah, screw Sony and its bs predatory practices! They poked the bear for far to long! Time to deal with the consequences!

Whatever happened and might happen to them regarding future acquisitions, they´d brought on themselves!

"But I don't see the problem ..aren't you guys fine with these deals???"

Of course I´m. Sony can acquire EA and I wouldn´t give a sh!t. They could had acquired CDPR or Kadokawa for they´d chose and invested all that money on Bungie, because GaaS is their priority.

At least Phil invested on Bethesda which main focus is RPGs and single player games due his vision for Xbox.

To each their own, I guess?

MontyeKristo163d ago

shinoff2183 - It's not really that different; let's be honest. There are very few games many people would wait a year for. There are sooo many games that get released every year, I've such a large backlog already that it's hard to get to all of them. Not to mention, after waiting a year.. all the spoilers are already out there, good luck avoiding them.

For a lot of people; I imagine time exclusivity is just as bad as full exclusivity.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 163d ago
Lightning77163d ago

Biggest revenue stream, biggest money maker. You realize You're fighting for MS case with those statement right? Confirming its ok that MS to make those games exclusive?

MrDead163d ago

Wow, someone has no clue how business works, go stalk someone else kid or I'll hand your ass to you again.

Lightning77162d ago

So basically just owned yourself in your comment since you can't explain. You didn't hand nothing to nobody. You're literally just made MS pint for them and didn't even realize it.

Go ahead and explain.

MrDead162d ago

ok weird creepy stalker that has followed this comment for almost two days, a publisher that had three revenue streams now only has one full paying platform and a share of a subscription service and has lost it's biggest console market. Your spectacular lack of understanding of business seems to think that because they are owned by MS that an underperforming or lowest profit margin division will be fine... just a little heads up MS has already fired Xbox and Bethesda staff because of Azures lower than expected profits... now go away child!

Lightning77162d ago (Edited 162d ago )

As expected you didn't answer my question. Let me break it down. So MS makes less than Sony as you stated. You suggest they continue to provide to the highest revenue stream on PS, which means for Sony to stay on top. MS bought one of the company's that provides said money for Sony, that'll now being making money on Xbox. Or attempt at it anyway. To slowly chip away said revenue made on PS.

Again you're argument was the EXACT same argument that MS made about Sony this past year that's why they're getting approved because of said facts about Sony and MS platforms when comparing revenue streams So in turn you're helping MS case.

Stalker this and that blah, blah, blah. No What you said was dumb and I wanted to point that out to you.