Support NeoGAF

[Silent Viper]

This is what he said.

And this is what they submitted to the European Commission.

Where do you see "existing fanbase and community" here? lol

He also said case by case basis and he also said we will support existing games with communities. Why you not highlighting that part? Deal is done to strengthen MS first party and not to pull games which are already on PS. They committing to what they said. They honored all the deals and supporting all their online games on PS. Future games will be case by case basis. They were crystal clear. He never once said every Future Bethesda games will come to PS. Just twisting the words and giving different meaning. Seriously i see similarities between you guys and those clowns working at FTC, idk why lol.

And EU also called CMA lie over twitter remember? Eu commission said MS never commited to bring every Bethesda games to PS. They publicly called CMA out over this.

 

[Heisenberg007]

He also said case by case basis and he also said we will support existing games with communities. Why you not highlighting that part? Deal is done to strengthen MS first party and not to pull games which are already on PS. They committing to what they said. They honored all the deals and supporting all their online games on PS. Future games will be case by case basis. They were crystal clear. He never once said every Future Bethesda games will come to PS. Just twisting the words and giving different meaning. Seriously i see similarities between you guys and those clowns working at FTC, idk why lol.

And EU also called CMA lie over twitter remember? Eu commission said MS never commited to bring every Bethesda games to PS. They publicly called CMA out over this.

lol come on with the whatboutism.

Did he say this or not? He did. And then he did the opposite. That's all there is to it. I don't know why some people have such a hard time admitting that one of the executives lied and misled people with his statements.

It's not about you. It's about a company suit lying to gamers. There's no need to defend a suit.

 

[Silent Viper]

lol come on with the whatboutism.

Did he say this or not? He did. And then he did the opposite. That's all there is to it. I don't know why some people have such a hard time admitting that one of the executives lied and misled people with his statements.

It's not about you. It's about a company suit lying to gamers. There's no need to defend a suit.

Did he say case by case basis or not?

Did he supported existing games on PS or not?

What existing games or IPs getting pulled off from PS?


And yes, one of the executives lied and that executive is - Jim "Flying Lying Crying" Ryan

Sony’s PlayStation chief privately said Microsoft’s Activision deal wasn’t about Xbox exclusives

A surprise revelation just minutes into the FTC v. Microsoft hearing.

www.theverge.com

 

[phil_t98]

Really the bethesda acquisition screwed over Sony only gamers way worse than activision will. I would trade every COD game for Starfield.

You mean starfield that Sony was trying to make exclusive

 

[StealthGoblin]

I very much doubt Xbox signed a contract to make a PlayStation version of Indiana Jones.

Bethesda did. And Xbox said they’d honour existing contracts.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Bethesda did. And Xbox said they’d honour existing contracts.

They did, but if they rewrite a contract they are not bound by that promise. Why would not we trust this monstrously large corporation who talks about respecting laws as if it were just an option with a buyout of one of the biggest third party publishers in the world given this stellar past behaviour…? Dunno, seems like the only possible explanation is that Good Guy Phil is just too Good for us…

 

[Helghan]

Did he say this or not? He did. And then he did the opposite. That's all there is to it. I don't know why some people have such a hard time admitting that one of the executives lied and misled people with his statements.

He didn't lie. You are aware what implausible means, right? Does implausible mean impossible?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Did he say case by case basis or not?

Did he supported existing games on PS or not?

What existing games or IPs getting pulled off from PS?


And yes, one of the executives lied and that executive is - Jim "Flying Lying Crying" Ryan

Sony’s PlayStation chief privately said Microsoft’s Activision deal wasn’t about Xbox exclusives

A surprise revelation just minutes into the FTC v. Microsoft hearing.

www.theverge.com

More whataboutism

To jog your memory, you quoted my comment by saying, "Correction" and that he never said what I said. I have showed you his quote that he said exactly that.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I very much doubt Xbox signed a contract to make a PlayStation version of Indiana Jones.

Xbox didn't. Bethesda did. Xbox acquired Bethesda and all its contracts, liabilities, and obligations.

Then Xbox later did not honor that contract and instead amended it to make the game exclusive.

 

[Ozriel]

In normal circumstances, Disney wouldn't. However, I'm sure Microsoft paid them a very hefty cheque that covered for (1) Lost projected sales on PlayStation, and (2) Lost projected sales on Xbox because of day one Game Pass.

Think of like at least a $100 million cheque.

Even If you assume Disney gets an average of $5 per copy sold in a sales forecast, you’d have to be talking of 20 million units to make up that $100m number you just pulled out.

That’s not a credible guess at all.

 

[Ozriel]

lol come on with the whatboutism.

Did he say this or not? He did. And then he did the opposite. That's all there is to it. I don't know why some people have such a hard time admitting that one of the executives lied and misled people with his statements.

It's not about you. It's about a company suit lying to gamers. There's no need to defend a suit.

Where’s the lie?
Phil’s made it clear that they see Cloud as an avenue for more people to play games. And that’s what he’s referring to.

They’re also not pursuing a 100% exclusivity strategy with Zenimax games. As you well know

 

[wolffy66]

Xbox didn't. Bethesda did. Xbox acquired Bethesda and all its contracts, liabilities, and obligations.

Then Xbox later did not honor that contract and instead amended it to make the game exclusive.

So they will be sued for breach of contract then? It takes two parties to amend a contract typically.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

They’re still honoring the contract Zenimax had with Disney. It’s been altered, but they’re still honoring it

And they had to alter it, otherwise it wouldn’t be a GamePass day one title.

 

[Ozriel]

Xbox didn't. Bethesda did. Xbox acquired Bethesda and all its contracts, liabilities, and obligations.

Then Xbox later did not honor that contract and instead amended it to make the game exclusive.

They renegotiated the contract and are now honoring it.

One party can’t wake up and ‘amend’ a signed contract.

 

[Gorgon]

That’s how it has always been with exclusives. There was always those who couldn’t play the games without an extra investment.

Maybe if fans stopped putting every single exclusive on a pedestal and downplaying multiplats and stating that PC versions don’t matter we wouldn’t be in this position, where a core gamer needs to own 3 consoles and/or a PC to not turn into a salty grumpy whiny person everytime there is talk about an interesting exclusive on ”the wrong” platform.

The publishers listened. This is what we got. Now we have more console exclusives and timed exclusivity deals, just like the fans wanted, and that’s alright because the games come to PC too and then the exclusivity don’t matter, like the fans said.

I'm not convinced that that's the reason. The way I see it, the moment that you have two competitors like Sony and MS then essentialy you are selling the same console with the same games. No one is going to buy two TVs or two blu-ray players or whatever that do exactely the same and put them side by side in the living room just for the heck of it. You either buy one or the other. That means that the competition boils down to price and exclusive features, which in this case means a handful of exclusive games. This isn't a problem with Nintendo, because even though they are in the same industry space as competitors they are much more differentiated, meaning that it's really more like "do I like both and if yes then I buy both since what they offer is completely different".

MS and Sony aren't "different" in any meaningful way, they're the same product with virtually all the same games. Exclusive games were bound to happen, because these companies know that if they have nothing different to offer then no one has any reason to buy both. I certainly would prefer to just buy one of them precisely because it seems like a waste of money to have both just because of 4-5 games per gen that I want to play and are exclusive. And of course, Sony and MS know that, so I can't really say that the problem is the fans "putting every single exclusive on a pedestal and downplaying multiplats".

 

[Gorgon]

Xbox didn't. Bethesda did. Xbox acquired Bethesda and all its contracts, liabilities, and obligations.

Then Xbox later did not honor that contract and instead amended it to make the game exclusive.

Hum, that's not the correct way to put it. The two posts below are correct. The contract was obviously renegotiated with Disney and they both agreed to the new contract.

They’re still honoring the contract Zenimax had with Disney. It’s been altered, but they’re still honoring it

And they had to alter it, otherwise it wouldn’t be a GamePass day one title.

They renegotiated the contract and are now honoring it.

One party can’t wake up and ‘amend’ a signed contract.

 

[Flabagast]

Another game that will barely sell then

 

[Ozriel]

Another game that will barely sell then

Textbook case of 'sour grapes' right here.

 

[CatLady]

Xbox didn't. Bethesda did. Xbox acquired Bethesda and all its contracts, liabilities, and obligations.

Then Xbox later did not honor that contract and instead amended it to make the game exclusive.

How unreasonable and unfair of Xbox, not wanting one of their first party studios to make a game for their direct and hostile competitor.

 

[Topher]

It would be interesting to know how much Microsoft paid to make the game exclusive. Removing PlayStation leaves a lot of sales revenue so I would think Disney will be compensated for that.

 

[adamsapple]

It would be interesting to know how much Microsoft paid to make the game exclusive. Removing PlayStation leaves a lot of sales revenue so I would think Disney will be compensated for that.

Phil: "Mickey, I've come to bargain"

 

[mrmustard]

It would be interesting to know how much Microsoft paid to make the game exclusive. Removing PlayStation leaves a lot of sales revenue so I would think Disney will be compensated for that.

We don't even know if it's a royalty, a one-time fee or a hybrid model.

 

[Ozriel]

It would be interesting to know how much Microsoft paid to make the game exclusive. Removing PlayStation leaves a lot of sales revenue so I would think Disney will be compensated for that.

There hasn’t been an Indiana Jones game for ages, and no precedence for numbers, so I’d be surprised if anyone had any forecast greater than 5 million units.

Compensation would also cover the GamePass effect, but still is hard to imagine them paying a crazy amount of money for that.

 

[Heisenberg007]

So they will be sued for breach of contract then? It takes two parties to amend a contract typically.

No, there wasn't anything illegal. They changed the contract, and the new contract now takes precedence.

But this does go against their public stance that (1) we honor all our contracts, and (2) the acquisition wasn't done to take games away from another platform.

 

[Fredrik]

I certainly would prefer to just buy one of them precisely because it seems like a waste of money to have both just because of 4-5 games per gen that I want to play and are exclusive. And of course, Sony and MS know that, so I can't really say that the problem is the fans "putting every single exclusive on a pedestal and downplaying multiplats".

Well I too would prefer that but that ship has sailed, and I absolutely think the exclusivity focus is a direct result of loud core fans comparing the platforms that way for minimum 2 generations. Now we’re in the ”we’ve heard you” era, loud fans on Twitter and boards have a ton of power, it’s not just about sales graphs now, it’s about being big and important and a winner in social media too. I don’t think there is an equation or graph anywhere that shows that it actually makes business sense to deliberately sell a game to less people.

 

[Heisenberg007]

How unreasonable and unfair of Xbox, not wanting one of their first party studios to make a game for their direct and hostile competitor.

As I have said multiple times, I have no problems with Xbox exclusivity. Really. It's even more so because so far all the games Xbox has made exclusive, I had/have 0 interest in playing.

My only problem is (and has always been) with the PR bullshit and narratives they make. Honestly, that's the only issue I've had in all this.

You want to make exclusives? Own that shit and get all the exclusives you want. More power to you. But do not pose as the good guy and the savior of gamers who hates exclusivity and "would never pay a third-party developer to skip PlayStation."

That hypocrisy is an insult to gamers and the hobby I love.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

No, there wasn't anything illegal. They changed the contract, and the new contract now takes precedence.

But this does go against their public stance that (1) we honor all our contracts, and (2) the acquisition wasn't done to take games away from another platform.

No it doesn’t, not at all.

1. There are honoring the contract, it’s been altered. You literally just said nothing illegal was done. You can’t claim they aren’t honoring their contract and at the same time nothing illegal was done.

2. This one is even more obvious. When they say the deal wasn’t done to take games away from PlayStation, that in no way means there won’t be exclusive games. It means exactly what it says, the key motivator for the deal wasn’t taking games away from PlayStation. Spencer went into detail about the motivations for the deal on Friday.

The way some of you twist and turn simple statements to fit your narratives is cute, but not reality. It’s just like the “we won’t raise the price of GamePass because of the deal”, then they raise the price and you warriors are LOOL LIARS when the reality is inflation and years since the service launched meant a price hike was already coming whether they signed Bethesda or ABK or not.

Be better.

 

[phil_t98]

It would be interesting to know how much Microsoft paid to make the game exclusive. Removing PlayStation leaves a lot of sales revenue so I would think Disney will be compensated for that.

Similar to what Sony paid for spiderman?

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[El Pistolero]

Do people still care about this franchise?

 

[Gorgon]

It would be interesting to know how much Microsoft paid to make the game exclusive. Removing PlayStation leaves a lot of sales revenue so I would think Disney will be compensated for that.

Of course they were compensated somehow in a way that they agreed to. Otherwise no renegotiation of the contract would be possible.

 

[Topher]

Similar to what Sony paid for spiderman?

Not a similar situation really. Disney wanted a Bethesda to make a multiplat Indiana Jones. If they wanted a multiplat Spider-man then more than likely they wouldn't have come to Sony.

There hasn’t been an Indiana Jones game for ages, and no precedence for numbers, so I’d be surprised if anyone had any forecast greater than 5 million units.

Compensation would also cover the GamePass effect, but still is hard to imagine them paying a crazy amount of money for that.

Probably just took what they projected out sales-wise and hashed out a number. I agree though that the IP is more than likely not worth what it may have been at one time.

 

[Topher]

We don't even know if it's a royalty, a one-time fee or a hybrid model.

And we don't know if they model had to change in renegotiation to accommodate the smaller player base. All good questions.

 

[mrmustard]

And we don't know if they model had to change in renegotiation to accommodate the smaller player base. All good questions.

Why would they have to change anything if it was a one-time fee in the first place?

 

[phil_t98]

Not a similar situation really. Disney wanted a Bethesda to make a multiplat Indiana Jones. If they wanted a multiplat Spider-man then more than likely they wouldn't have come to Sony.



Probably just took what they projected out sales-wise and hashed out a number. I agree though that the IP is more than likely not worth what it may have been at one time.

Disney were shopping Spider-Man around so it could of been multiplat

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[Topher]

Disney were shopping Spider-Man around so it could of been multiplat

Maybe, maybe not. This isn't a Spider-man thread though.

 

[adamsapple]

Do people still care about this franchise?

The movies ?

The game ?

We got no idea what the scale, scope or even game play model is gonna be, so it's a waiting game.

 

[phil_t98]

Maybe, maybe not. This isn't a Spider-man thread though.

Nice deflection. What’s your guess then what they paid?

 

[Gorgon]

Well I too would prefer that but that ship has sailed, and I absolutely think the exclusivity focus is a direct result of loud core fans comparing the platforms that way for minimum 2 generations. Now we’re in the ”we’ve heard you” era, loud fans on Twitter and boards have a ton of power, it’s not just about sales graphs now, it’s about being big and important and a winner in social media too. I don’t think there is an equation or graph anywhere that shows that it actually makes business sense to deliberately sell a game to less people.

The ship would have sailed anyway because otherwise on what grounds would anyone pick one console over the other? Or worse, why would anyone buy both? The platforms have to have differentiation on what they're providing the customer, and being videogame machines means the differentiation will unavoidably end up being games and hardware price. And you can only go so far with the latter.

Your second point, in my opinion, is missing the crucial insight that the business from a console manufacturer's perspective has nothing to do with any particular game's production being covered by sales (unlike the case with third-party publishers). What matters is if the entire division as whole reaches your profitability target. If by having exclusive games that people want means that people will a) buy your console over the competition or buy both, b) subscribe monthly, and c) buy third-party software from which you get a 20-30% cut, then it's just a matter of reaching enough users for the whole thing to be more than justified. It has nothing to do with Starfield or whatever selling enough to pay for itself. It's not about any particular game but the entire division's profit levels as a whole.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

They were crystal clear. He never once said every Future Bethesda games will come to PS.

They never said they won’t, instead playing everyone and FTC like fools. So no, they were not crystal clear.

Not being crystal clear: “We are looking forward to bringing great Bethesda games to Xbox players”.

Being crystal clear: “Future Bethesda games will be Xbox and PC exclusives”.

 

[johnjohn]

No, there wasn't anything illegal. They changed the contract, and the new contract now takes precedence.

But this does go against their public stance that (1) we honor all our contracts, and (2) the acquisition wasn't done to take games away from another platform.

They did honor the contract though, as many people have already pointed out to you... And exclusivity not being the focus of the acquisition doesn't mean they can't and won't make games exclusives if it makes sense financially.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

They did honor the contract though, as many people have already pointed out to you... And exclusivity not being the focus of the acquisition doesn't mean they can't and won't make games exclusives if it makes sense financially.

Exactly this. All these warriors trying to play chess with simple statements.

 

[Topher]

Why would they have to change anything if it was a one-time fee in the first place?

The deal was factually amended to make it Xbox only, dude. That's in the tweet.

Nice deflection. What’s your guess then what they paid?

Says the guy deflecting to Spider-man? lol....ok

You keep proving you deserve that tag.

 

[mrmustard]

The deal was factually amended to make it Xbox only, dude. That's in the tweet.

Than it was most likely a royalty deal. No idea what Disney takes, but i guess Indi is on the lower end of the spectrum. If i had to assume a number i would say maybe 5%. Without Game Pass they could have simply gone by the console sales, with Game Pass it's hard to say.

 

[Topher]

Than it was most likely a royalty deal. No idea what Disney takes, but i guess Indi is on the lower end of the spectrum. If i had to assume a number i would say maybe 5%. Without Game Pass they could have simply gone by the console sales, with Game Pass it's hard to say.

Think you are probably right. Guessing the exclusivity and Game Pass were probably handled separately, but definitely not seeing a huge cash grab for Indy at this point.

 

[SantaC]

Yeah, their history is a very specific kind of game, it's the same kind of oddity as seeing the Forza developer tackle an RPG. Let's see how it shows whenever its ready.

Guerilla just made fps games before horizon.

 

[mrmustard]

Think you are probably right. Guessing the exclusivity and Game Pass were probably handled separately, but definitely not seeing a huge cash grab for Indy at this point.

I think it wasn't too expensive for Microsoft, most likely nowhere near Tomb Raider numbers.

We can play with some numbers, but it's completely just pulled out of my ass:

Let's say Disney expects 10 million game sales with a revenue of 400 million over 5 years and it's expected that Pc does 4 million, PS 4 million and Xbox 2 million.
Now with Game Pass it's Xbox = 500k and PS=0, meaning they have to pay the royalty for 5,5 million games.

5% royalty = 22 million Dollars + maybe a few 100k for a possible PS Now deal that can't happen anymore.

 

[Lupin25]

As I have said multiple times, I have no problems with Xbox exclusivity. Really. It's even more so because so far all the games Xbox has made exclusive, I had/have 0 interest in playing.

My only problem is (and has always been) with the PR bullshit and narratives they make. Honestly, that's the only issue I've had in all this.

You want to make exclusives? Own that shit and get all the exclusives you want. More power to you. But do not pose as the good guy and the savior of gamers who hates exclusivity and "would never pay a third-party developer to skip PlayStation."

That hypocrisy is an insult to gamers and the hobby I love.

To even debate this still is disingenuous lol...
The problem has been restated many times.

People claim, “what’s wrong with MS making Bethesda’s titles exclusive, because they own them…”

They’ve been dishonest with their intent to do so.

It may have landed them much-needed quality exclusive games, but now it will possibly come at the cost of future acquisitions.
Had they revealed their true intent, they wouldn’t be involved in court with the FTC.
At the same time, they might not have the exclusives they have now if they did.

It’s a double-edged sword kind of situation.

Starfield looks great though at least lol

 

[Heisenberg007]

To even debate this still is disingenuous lol...
The problem has been restated many times.

People claim, “what’s wrong with MS making Bethesda’s titles exclusive, because they own them…”

They’ve been dishonest with their intent to do so.

It may have landed them much-needed quality exclusive games, but now it will possibly come at the cost of future acquisitions.
Had they revealed their true intent, they wouldn’t be involved in court with the FTC.
At the same time, they might not have the exclusives they have now if they did.

It’s a double-edged sword kind of situation.

Starfield looks great though at least lol

True. I don't know, people have this warrior (us vs. them) mentality that ends up clouding everything. I just go where the games are.

For instance, I love the Ori series. They are Microsoft exclusives, but I absolutely adore that franchise. And what I wouldn't give to get Ori 3. I'll be there day one. My profile:

On the other hand, some people think I'm salty because of Starfield's exclusivity (lol). I'm absolutely not. This is how much I like Todd Howard's games:

I have a very firm stance on all this: I don't mind exclusivity. I do mind the gaslighting and PR narrative bullshit. Just be honest, and then do whatever you want to do. If I like a game Microsoft releases, I'll play it (just like I played Ori).