Belthazar
Member
With Sony the timed exclusivity is literally mentioned in the trailers, with no need for leaks. It's not Sony's fault that developers don't deem an Xbox port worthwhile even after that exclusivity window expires.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Final Fantasy VII Remake, Final Fantasy XVI and Silent Hill 2 Remake can only be released on Xbox if Sony allows it
- Status
With Sony the timed exclusivity is literally mentioned in the trailers, with no need for leaks. It's not Sony's fault that developers don't deem an Xbox port worthwhile even after that exclusivity window expires.
nocsi
Member
You can say it’s Microsoft’s fault for allowing Sony this type of leverage during their last generation Kinect escapade. It’s ok to blame Microsoft, stop being a victim
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Source ?
like, just think about it for a second. Square is putting Crisis Core on Xbox, but not FFVII remake. Do you *really* think it's because they don't deem it worthwhile, or because Sony paid to extend the exclusivity, which they already did once for Intergrade and beyond.
c'mon
anthony2690
Banned
Grow the fuck up.
Some people are desperate to warrior some times.
I blame stuff that is Microsoft's fault like turning down Genshin impact and street fighter 5.
The post states it requires Sony permission, so is the post title wrong/misleading?
Last edited:
Killer8
Member
I refuse to believe MS are retarded enough to list Bloodborne as an example of a money hat deal. The game is a wholly Sony owned IP which was produced by Japan Studio. I mean for fuck sake, Japan Studio approached Miyazaki with the idea for the game:
Frankly, Sony should get litigious over bullshit like this.
Frankly, Sony should get litigious over bullshit like this.
BiohazardX95
Member
Source ?
like, just think about it for a second. Square is putting Crisis Core on Xbox, but not FFVII remake. Do you *really* think it's because they don't deem it worthwhile, or because Sony paid to extend the exclusivity, which they already did once for Intergrade and beyond.
c'mon
I think he refers to this, most square enix games don't sell on xbox.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I think he refers to this, most square enix games don't sell on xbox.
Random tweet, from an unknown account, without any source to back it up.
Yep, that checks out.
Mister Wolf
Member
All the more reason to go PC.
Dick Jones
Gold Member
Who tweeted this?
I think he refers to this, most square enix games don't sell on xbox.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The original author deleted it, no links were cited in it.
Needless to say, crock of BS.
This is a RT of that tweet where you can see the original is deleted.
Last edited:
NonPhixion
Member
Like just think about it for a secondSource ?
like, just think about it for a second.
c'mon
OG came out on PC 17 months after PS
Remake came out on PC 20 months after PS
now do the some simple maths for the eventual xbox release?
Belthazar
Member
Grow the fuck up.
Some people are desperate to warrior some times.
I blame stuff that is Microsoft's fault like turning down and street fighter 5.
The post states it requires Sony permission, so is the post title wrong/misleading?
The post clearly extrapolated and took creative conclusions based on what the documents said. The documents clearly describe standard exclusivity deals if you read them
Last edited:
Belthazar
Member
Source ?
like, just think about it for a second. Square is putting Crisis Core on Xbox, but not FFVII remake. Do you *really* think it's because they don't deem it worthwhile, or because Sony paid to extend the exclusivity, which they already did once for Intergrade and beyond.
c'mon
Source: the exclusivity window being widely publicized. After it ends it's basically the publisher choice... I mean, if Sony actually paid for full exclusivity do you think they would advertise it as timed? It would make no sense.
MOTM
Banned
Please share that data. Curious.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The exclusivity window tags in the trailer mention ambiguous platform releases, which turned out to be the PC releases.
Not to mention they already extended their 12 month window once after the game released out, none of us can say if and how much they've done that since then.
But, again, the fact that they're releasing the smaller scale FFVII prequel and not the bigger selling FFVII itself should be immediately telling.
Last edited:
Unknown?
Member
Pretty much, MS is in desperation mode now. Making up claims to see what sticks.
FalsettoVibe
Member
What kinda dumb argument is this? Sony has exclusive agreements. Of course other platforms are excluded. Isn't that was exclusivity is? Stop playing victim and use some of those billions to do similar.
Badlucktroll
Member
Wish a better AAA studio got to make the SH2 remake and not bloober
Draugoth
Gold Member
I think he refers to this, most square enix games don't sell on xbox.
Most FF fans are asian, and most of them own a PlayStation
Synless
Member
Show me those ethnicity stats in the form of data please.
Rykan
Member
Why are people getting so upset over Bloodborne being mentioned there? It makes perfect sense in the context. It says that Sony entered arrangements with third party publishers (In this case, the term publisher should also be read as developer) to require the exclusion of the Xbox platform. Sony indeed entered arrangements with FromSoft to develop bloodborne and to not release it on Xbox Platforms. The fact that the deal includes Sony getting full ownership of the IP is kind of irrelevant to the point. The context is to "Prove" that Sony will still have plenty of exclusive content and that content exclusivity is normal.
TxKnight7
Member
A new document via the UK's CMA has Microsoft stating that Sony has entered what it calls "Xbox Exclusion" deals with certain game companies.
The part of the filing that mentions this specifically lists Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Final Fantasy XVI, and even the recently announced Silent Hill 2.
I know microsoft has done the same but
Just asking here be easy on me... sony did not have any exclusive deals before in the time of Ps1, Nintendo 64, Sega? Ps2 ?
First Xbox was released after them
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. This included Tomb Raider, again, as well as Disney titles and games from Take-Two, including Grand Theft Auto and State of Emergency.
I think New IPs is normal thing for microsoft to make them exclusive from both Bethesda and Activision
lets not forget
Sony was negotiating Starfield exclusivity for PS5 before
and microsoft did say games like cod will not be exclusive just like Minecraft.
Sony just don't like Game Pass..?
The part of the filing that mentions this specifically lists Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Final Fantasy XVI, and even the recently announced Silent Hill 2.
I know microsoft has done the same but
Just asking here be easy on me... sony did not have any exclusive deals before in the time of Ps1, Nintendo 64, Sega? Ps2 ?
First Xbox was released after them
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. This included Tomb Raider, again, as well as Disney titles and games from Take-Two, including Grand Theft Auto and State of Emergency.
I think New IPs is normal thing for microsoft to make them exclusive from both Bethesda and Activision
lets not forget
Sony was negotiating Starfield exclusivity for PS5 before
and microsoft did say games like cod will not be exclusive just like Minecraft.
Sony just don't like Game Pass..?
AnotherOne
Member
Xbox got no games
FoxMcChief
Gold Member
Ehh. Just let each company do their thing. Gamers win regardless.
Duchess
Member
Microsoft to Acquire Bungie Software - Stories
Microsoft Corp. announced it acquired Chicago-based Bungie Software Products Corp., a leading independent developer of action oriented computer and video games.
news.microsoft.com
Snowdonhoffen
Member
After they quoted Tom Warren in one of the documents, nothing surprises me anymore.
Killer8
Member
It makes zero sense.
There is a world of difference between paying a developer to make their existing project exclusive to your platform (ie. a money hat - Final Fantasy XVI) vs owning and organically co-developing the IP from the ground up (ie. Bloodborne).
It would be like Sony suggesting that Microsoft getting Asobo studio to develop the Flight Simulator IP is 'excluding' PlayStation somehow. It's dumb.
Last edited:
anothertech
Member
The more Ms talks the worse they look. Totally trying to mislead everyone involved.
Fucking cry harder.
Fucking cry harder.
Kagey K
Banned
They literally didn't and saying so shows how little you know about the history of the industry.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
Dick Jones
Gold Member
I dont know where you got Sony were negotiating Starfield exclusivity from. We have been told here on GAF by the Ambassadors that there were no plans to make a PS5 version of Starfield. The only question is why would Bethesda be in negotiations for a game they were never going to release on PS5?
Rykan
Member
You're ignoring the context in which the statement as made.
This is what the snippet is about: "Exclusivity strategies are not uncommon in the games industry and other market participants have access to their own content"
Sony entered an agreement with FromSoft to develop a title exclusively for Playstation. The fact that Sony also acts as the publisher doesn't make any difference in the context of the statement, because the intention is to show that Sony has more ways than one to obtain exclusive content and, above all, to show that exclusivity is something that is common and practiced by all market participants, and thus the possible exclusivity of AB games to the Xbox platform shouldn't be an objection to Microsoft acquiring AB.
That's the argument that's being laid forward here. There's no reason to differentiate between an exclusive obtained by paying off a third party publisher or acting as the publisher for a third party developer yourself because the point here is the fact that exclusives developed by both first party and third party are common.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Bloodborne is literally a Sony IP, they paid FromSoft to make it. Seems weird to include that among those other examples.
Unknown?
Member
You're missing a big part, Sony only did it to select games from a company. They never blocked the entire company from Xbox.
Last edited:
Rykan
Member
I'm not missing a big part. I never said anything about me agreeing or disagreeing with it, I'm just clarifying the argument that MS has laid forward for approval of the acquisition, and that it doesn't matter to differentiate between self published or not in that context.
Last edited:
- Status