• 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
Not open for further replies.

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
Xbox is perfectly fine if you enjoy major Japanese series, most of these are available and it has largely improved ever since Phil took charge. Except the ones Sony pays to prevent Xbox players from enjoying, of course.
I’m pretty sure Sony didn’t pay for games like Tactics Ogre Reborn to be console exclusive since it’s on Switch and PC but not on Xbox.

Same story with GrimGrimoire Oncemore, it’s coming out on both Switch PlayStation but not on Xbox, which I don’t NIS America got payed by Sony to keep it from coming on Xbox.
 
Last edited:

supernova8

Banned
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.
The part you are missing is that FromSoftware entering into an exclusivity agreement for Bloodborne doesn't stop FromSoftware from later deciding to also put games on Xbox. Plus, FromSoftware (or rather BandaiNamco) is putting Armored Core 6 on Xbox SX.

Example of this includes Final Fantasy 13, Final Fantasy 15 and two of the Silent Hill titles, all of which launched on Xbox the same time as Playstation in their respective generations. That probably would not have happened if Playstation had acquired them both. Same goes for Metal Gear Solid 5. It could be that Konami got annoyed with Sony over the Cell processor and PS3 and decided to put MGSV on Xbox as well. It could be that Sony didn't offer enough to moneyhat the game and thus it came to Xbox as well.

The point therefore is that exclusivity deals are, by their nature, temporary and usually only cover a single game, which means the platform holders still have to compete.

Outright acquiring a large publisher is absolutely not the same as what I've outlined above, and if you think it is then you're either being facetious or haven't understand what I wrote.
 
Last edited:
Well, on the bright side, that means Sunset Overdrive and Titanfall are coming to PS5. At the very least, Kojima's new game and every new MS game is hitting PS5. I mean, we wouldn't want to exclude anyone would we?
 

GHG

Gold Member
Not really. Its pointless to argue on obvious fact.

Only fanboys twerk for those stats.

I'll twerk if I want to thank you very much.

7 Eleven Video GIF
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
He fumbles his own damage control in the very same twitter thread.



That will make up the shortfall.

Calculating Oh No GIF by MOODMAN

Yep, this doesn't explain their own data: PlayStation's digital ratio of 79% and the industry digital average of 71%. PlayStation's digital ratio is higher than the average. It's easy to calculate that Xbox's and Nintendo digital ratio must be lower than the average, i.e., 71%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GHG

feynoob

Banned
That doesn't skew the numbers as long as the measurement criteria is the same for both platforms.
They are not, as long as the userbase numbers is in the play.
It would make sense if both platform had similar userbase numbers.

While xbox has a higher digital userbase, PS still has more userbase overall, so the advantage of having higher digital % diminishes fast in that aspect.
 

supernova8

Banned
So when do sunset overdrive and titanfall release on PlayStation again? It’s funny that they would even bring this up when they do it also. I mean they just bought. All of Bethesdas IPs. I do think Microsoft’s deal will go through but I also believe that if it does Microsoft will never see another Japanese title on their systems. Sony buying Capcom and SE would not surprise me at all as a retaliatory move.
the fact that these are the only non-first party xbox exclusives that come to mind is actually a hint about the situation. Microsoft failed miserably to build relationships with third party developers and publishers and now they have to literally force people to make games for them by buying them out.

Thierry Henry Smile GIF by hamlet


Ok a bit harsh
 

Killer8

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.

I'm aware of the context in which the statement was made ie. that exclusivity strategies with third parties are common within the industry. But the context of a statement, even when a company is attempting to craft a particular argument, shouldn't mischaracterize the particulars of those exclusivity strategies. Microsoft's statement does exactly that in Bloodborne's case by only describing third-party exclusivity in one way:

"In addition to having outright exclusive content, Sony has also entered into arrangements with third-party publishers which require the “exclusion” of Xbox from the set of platforms these publishers can distribute their games on."

This is an extremely binary way of thinking of exclusivity. I would be fine with MS merely pointing out that exclusivity exists in the industry, in general terms, but for them to define exclusivity as something that's either first-party original content or else it's just paying third parties to keep it off Xbox is incredibly disingenuous. In some ways, it's a lie by omission to not explore the nuance of the kind of third-party co-development arrangements that exist in games like Bloodborne, Sackboy or even MS' own Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Sometimes people in the past tried to define these as 'second party' games, which is an incorrect term, but goes some way to articulate the distinct status they have from a money hat third party exclusive.

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.

There absolutely is a reason to differentiate, because Microsoft are using their mischaracterization of third-party exclusivity (ie. it's just an exclusionary practice to harm Xbox) as a pretext for hammering this deal through. It's too logical and un-sexy to say "sometimes Sony pursue organic partnerships using their own IP with third-party studios". But if MS were to characterize every third-party agreement as just Sony buying exclusivity to deprive Xbox, like they are here, that means them doing precisely that with AB must be a-okay.
 
Last edited:

Killer8

Member
I also thought this part at the bottom of the document was funny:

KRARm49.png


So according to the definition of third-party exclusivity that MS laid out with Bloodborne ie. that Sony must have paid the developer to exclude it from Xbox, I guess that means Sackboy could've been on Xbox if Sony hadn't blocked it. What an evil company Sony is. Just disregard that they co-created the LittleBigPlanet IP which Sackboy belongs to over a decade ago...

It's also an identical situation to Microsoft's own Microsoft Flight Sim.

Microsoft Flight Sim -> MS owned IP.
Sackboy -> Sony owned IP.
Microsoft Flight Sim developed by third-party (Asobo).
Sackboy developed by third-party (Sumo).

By god, that means Microsoft must be paying to keep Flight Sim off PS5!!
 

gladdys

Member
Paying third parties to keep long running games series like final fantasy, street fighter, silent hill, etc. off of a competing platform is not good for consumers/gamers and the choices available to them. Does anyone disagree?
 
Last edited:

TheTony316

Member
Paying third parties to keep long running games series like final fantasy, street fighter, silent hill, etc. off of a competing platform is not good for consumers/gamers and the choices available to them. Does anyone disagree?

Sure but the same can be said about buying entire publishers to keep long running series like TES, Fallout, Wolfenstein, COD etc. off competing platforms.
 

gladdys

Member
Sure but the same can be said about buying entire publishers to keep long running series like TES, Fallout, Wolfenstein, COD etc. off competing platforms.
I agree with that. So would you acknowledge the means are different but both Sony and Microsoft are using the same strategy?
 
Xbox is perfectly fine if you enjoy major Japanese series, most of these are available and it has largely improved ever since Phil took charge. Except the ones Sony pays to prevent Xbox players from enjoying, of course.
You should check some of the japanese games Xbox was getting during the original Xbox or 360 (many were even exclusives) if you think this is the best Xbox has ever been interns of Japanese games.

This "Phil Spencer is the best" posts are getting out of hand lol.
 

gladdys

Member
You should check some of the japanese games Xbox was getting during the original Xbox or 360 (many were even exclusives) if you think this is the best Xbox has ever been interns of Japanese games.

This "Phil Spencer is the best" posts are getting out of hand lol.
It has definitely improved though, yakuza, persona, guilty gear, dragon quest, etc. I had given up on Xbox getting these games and Phil, through some hard graft, has improved things for us there. Also putting them on gamespass as well, which is good for the publisher as I had not finished dragon quest, it left the service, so I have now purchased it.
 

gladdys

Member
Yes and No because MS actually does both. They swallow up entire publishers on top of doing timed exclusivity deals. Granted, their deals aren't on par with Sony but still.
Mate, there is six months to a year deals that MS do and there are the years and years (if not forever) deals that Sony do. Gamespass has helped fund a lot of games that other platforms will get down the road that may not have happened before that service existed.
 

John Wick

Member
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.
So where's the proof this actually happened?
 

anthony2690

Banned
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.
Tbh you are right, they are a LOT clearer now. (Even if some end up being just pc)

Where as prior when ff7 remake & crash trilogy was announced it was announced as timed or exclusive, one appeared and one had been radio silent since.

This Christmas retail work is making me grumpy, there is only so much Christmas music one can take.

& Some of the customers are beyond nightmare fuel, please for the love of god don't let your kids wreck the shop. 😔
 
Last edited:

Fabieter

Member
Not true. The dynamics of the current market make it extremely favorable to the dominant system.

If we assume sales splits are still around 80/20 in favor of PS, then Sony pays SQEX enough to offset 20% sales. SQEX gets the 80% sales plus a check. Xbox has to cover 80% sales. It's probably 3x more expensive to get a timed exclusive for them, or more. And then Xbox only sells a smaller amount as well. Do this over and over and you bleed your competition dry from a position of market dominance. The systemic forces favor Sony. It's preventing any other players from competing directly on merit. They're priced out.

Makes a lot more sense for MS to invest in owning their own publisher than bleeding money on these losing deals. Rumor is they had to pay $100 million for 1 year of Tomb Raider last gen. It's just not worth it. Better to invest in acquisitions you own.

So its better for competition to buy multiple pubs than buying some 3p deals. What bullshit is this.
 

TheTony316

Member
Mate, there is six months to a year deals that MS do and there are the years and years (if not forever) deals that Sony do. Gamespass has helped fund a lot of games that other platforms will get down the road that may not have happened before that service existed.

Yeah but it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft buys whole publishers (which IMO is worse than timed exclusivity deals) as well as paying for third party deals. So, what the hell is Microsoft complaining about here?
 

Esppiral

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..?
Sony has been doing it since day one on the original PSX, some folks here seems to be too young
 
So its better for competition to buy multiple pubs than buying some 3p deals. What bullshit is this.
Way better. You may have noticed that MS has been doing pretty well since changing their strategy from last gen.

They're still in 3rd place though, and still not even hitting 30% split on sales physically, or hitting their GP sub target numbers. And they're aggressively cutting price on the systems in various sales for the holidays. Sony still clearly has the dominant position and regularly stifles competition in a variety of ways.
 
Last edited:

Rykan

Member
The part you are missing is that FromSoftware entering into an exclusivity agreement for Bloodborne doesn't stop FromSoftware from later deciding to also put games on Xbox. Plus, FromSoftware (or rather BandaiNamco) is putting Armored Core 6 on Xbox SX.

Example of this includes Final Fantasy 13, Final Fantasy 15 and two of the Silent Hill titles, all of which launched on Xbox the same time as Playstation in their respective generations. That probably would not have happened if Playstation had acquired them both. Same goes for Metal Gear Solid 5. It could be that Konami got annoyed with Sony over the Cell processor and PS3 and decided to put MGSV on Xbox as well. It could be that Sony didn't offer enough to moneyhat the game and thus it came to Xbox as well.

The point therefore is that exclusivity deals are, by their nature, temporary and usually only cover a single game, which means the platform holders still have to compete.

Outright acquiring a large publisher is absolutely not the same as what I've outlined above, and if you think it is then you're either being facetious or haven't understand what I wrote.
I don't quite understand why this is now the 2nd time someone makes this claim, when I've made it perfectly clear that I'm simply explaining what Microsoft's argument is here. I've made no statement in favor or against it, or whether it's a good argument or not.
I'm aware of the context in which the statement was made ie. that exclusivity strategies with third parties are common within the industry. But the context of a statement, even when a company is attempting to craft a particular argument, shouldn't mischaracterize the particulars of those exclusivity strategies. Microsoft's statement does exactly that in Bloodborne's case by only describing third-party exclusivity in one way:

"In addition to having outright exclusive content, Sony has also entered into arrangements with third-party publishers which require the “exclusion” of Xbox from the set of platforms these publishers can distribute their games on."

This is an extremely binary way of thinking of exclusivity. I would be fine with MS merely pointing out that exclusivity exists in the industry, in general terms, but for them to define exclusivity as something that's either first-party original content or else it's just paying third parties to keep it off Xbox is incredibly disingenuous. In some ways, it's a lie by omission to not explore the nuance of the kind of third-party co-development arrangements that exist in games like Bloodborne, Sackboy or even MS' own Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Sometimes people in the past tried to define these as 'second party' games, which is an incorrect term, but goes some way to articulate the distinct status they have from a money hat third party exclusive.



There absolutely is a reason to differentiate, because Microsoft are using their mischaracterization of third-party exclusivity (ie. it's just an exclusionary practice to harm Xbox) as a pretext for hammering this deal through. It's too logical and un-sexy to say "sometimes Sony pursue organic partnerships using their own IP with third-party studios". But if MS were to characterize every third-party agreement as just Sony buying exclusivity to deprive Xbox, like they are here, that means them doing precisely that with AB must be a-okay.
It's not disingenuous, It's just completely irrelevant. It makes no difference whether a third party developer releases an exclusive game that happened to be published by Sony or releases a game exclusively with a paid for contract when it comes to availability for the consumer of said title, which is what this is all about. The result for the consumer is exactly the same. In both cases, Sony paid a third party to develop games exclusively for them which, in turn, means that it can't be released on Xbox, and Microsoft is using these examples to argue that exclusives are common, normal and that it shouldn't be used to block the acquisition.

You can make plenty of arguments that there is a big difference between paying for exclusive titles and acquiring an entire publisher, sure. But saying that they shouldn't have used Bloodborne as an example here simply because it's published by Sony themselves is silly and is missing the forest for the trees.
 

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
If MSs new found initiative of purchasing studios and publishers works and they do manage to claw back market share or grow gaming to bring them on more of a level pegging with sony is that not just a good business plan?

They haven't been able to compete on a level playing field with Sony, so they are trying a different approach?
 

Fabieter

Member
Way better. You may have noticed that MS has been doing pretty well since changing their strategy from last gen.

They're still in 3rd place though, and still not even hitting 30% split on sales physically, or hitting their GP sub target numbers. And they're aggressively cutting price on the systems in various sales for the holidays. Sony still clearly has the dominant position and regularly stifles competition in a variety of ways.

Well lets have Microsoft buying 2 to 3 more publishers and dethroning sony as the dominat players. Since they own all this stuff themselve there is no way ms get outbid in the future which will be horrendous. There is not a single company which stays the way Microsoft is when they get more dominate.
 

Fabieter

Member
And people seriously still fucking try to convince me Sony isn't the cancer pushing exclusivity today. I hope Microsoft takes CoD and all Bethesda games away from those scumbags.

Don't worry ms will and they won't stop at avb. There will be capcom, t2 and ea next and people will still act that industry is in no danger.
 

Starhowl

Member
Misleading thread-title containing false information: Nowhere inside the document (which isn't even the contract between Sony and Square-Enix, BTW!) does it say that Square-Enix would require Sony's permission to publish mentioned titles on Xbox. 😮‍💨

Timed-exclusivity is a common practice and doesn't require anyone's permission after the agreed-upon period has run out, after which the titles are also being released on other platforms (Xbox in the case of a timed-exclusivity). 🤷‍♂️🥳
 
Last edited:

DenchDeckard

Moderated wildly
Misleading thread-title containing false information: Nowhere inside the document (which isn't even the contract between Sony and Square-Enix, BTW!) does it say that Square-Enix would require Sony's permission to publish mentioned titles on Xbox. 😮‍💨

Timed-exclusivity is a common practice and doesn't require anyone's permission after the agreed-upon period has run out, after which the titles are also being released on other platforms (Xbox in this case). 🥳

Do you actually know the contracts or are you just speculating?
 

Starhowl

Member
Do you actually know the contracts or are you just speculating?
That the contracts - to my knowledge - aren't available (at least as a leak) to the public, is exactly what I've been pointing out here.

Additionally, for further clarification, I adjusted the text slightly to "Xbox in the case of a timed-exclusivity" from "Xbox in this case".
 
Last edited:

zzill3

Banned
Yeah but it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft buys whole publishers (which IMO is worse than timed exclusivity deals) as well as paying for third party deals. So, what the hell is Microsoft complaining about here?

Sony's most recent studio purchase was Bungie, a publisher. MS aren't complaining, they're just showing that exclusive content going on a platform is no reason to block the acquisition.

Well lets have Microsoft buying 2 to 3 more publishers and dethroning sony as the dominat players. Since they own all this stuff themselve there is no way ms get outbid in the future which will be horrendous. There is not a single company which stays the way Microsoft is when they get more dominate.

Will it be any more horrendous than what Sony is doing right now?
 

Kokoloko85

Member
This has been done for decades and its only a problem now?

So MS is allowed to buy entire publishers and have 3rd party exclusives, Nintendo is also allowed to have its own 3rd party exclusives from Square and Sega like Triangle Strategy and SMT5, aswel as MS and Nintendo blocking Octopath traveler coming to PS but PS isn’t allowed Exclusives like FF7Remake?

Go take his fake outrage somewhere else, its funny seeing Xbox and Phil Spencers ambassador and media strategy but its pure hypocritical.

Also complaining about Bloodborne… Its a Sony IP, made with a Playstation studio. If you want everything to be 3rd party and non exclusive go start asking MS and Nintendo to make everything 3rd party too
 
Last edited:
This has been done for decades and its only a problem now?

So MS is allowed to buy entire publishers and have 3rd party exclusives, Nintendo is also allowed to have its own 3rd party exclusives from Square and Sega like Triangle Strategy and SMT5, aswel as MS and Nintendo blocking Octopath traveler coming to PS but PS isn’t allowed Exclusives like FF7Remake?

Go take his fake outrage somewhere else, its funny seeing Xbox and Phil Spencers ambassador and media strategy but its pure hypocritical
Only one console maker is coming out and saying these things aren't allowed.
 

Fabieter

Member
Sony's most recent studio purchase was Bungie, a publisher. MS aren't complaining, they're just showing that exclusive content going on a platform is no reason to block the acquisition.



Will it be any more horrendous than what Sony is doing right now?

Bungie stays fully multiplatform if you can the same for Microsofts publisher than this is more than fine. I dont give a fuck about timed exclusives deals, I think they are dumb but they never would make me buy a platform. Microsoft is still getting some games from square enix. Sony won't get any games from Bethesda and avb going forward. There is an easy difference.
 
Maybe Phil should tell his playerbase to start buying these kinds of games. That might make his life easier.


These may not include the digital sales, but, surely this has to contribute to Sony snagging exclusive deals left and right if the percentages are accurate. I’ve seen these type of statistics very often. Seriously, why don’t XBOX gamers support these games?
 
Last edited:

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
They are not, as long as the userbase numbers is in the play.
It would make sense if both platform had similar userbase numbers.

While xbox has a higher digital userbase, PS still has more userbase overall, so the advantage of having higher digital % diminishes fast in that aspect.
But a higher user base will only shift the absolute data more in favor of PlayStation, not Xbox, right? Here's a scenario:
  • Hypothetical game A sells 100,000 copies: 71% digital (industry average as per GI.biz) and 29% physical or 71,000 digital and 29,000 physical.
  • Let's assume a sales ratio of 70:30 on PS and Xbox.
  • So, 70,000 copies on PS and 30,000 copies on Xbox.
  • PlayStation's financial reports shared 79% digital ratio, which means 55,300 (digital) and 14,700 (physical) on PS.
  • 71,000 (total digital) minus 55,300 (PS digital) leaves 18,000 remaining digital copies on Xbox, which amounts to 60%. Hence, Xbox's digital ratio turns out to be 60% digital and 40% physical.
The same data can be extrapolated for F2P games and downloads.

This is why I said that "Xbox is more digital than other platforms" is pretty much a false statement at this point.

GHG GHG example data of what we were talking about earlier ^
 

zzill3

Banned
This has been done for decades and its only a problem now?

So MS is allowed to buy entire publishers and have 3rd party exclusives, Nintendo is also allowed to have its own 3rd party exclusives from Square and Sega like Triangle Strategy and SMT5, aswel as MS and Nintendo blocking Octopath traveler coming to PS but PS isn’t allowed Exclusives like FF7Remake?

Go take his fake outrage somewhere else, its funny seeing Xbox and Phil Spencers ambassador and media strategy but its pure hypocritical
You're reading it all wrong. Playstation is absolutely allowed to have exclusives, the acquisition is only causing problems because MS might make some of ABK games exclusive to xbox.

Nothing hypocritical in pointing out exclusives other consoles have when those other consoles are trying to block you from getting more exclusives yourself.
Hypocrisy is complaining about ABK games going exclusive to another console when you have loads of exclusives yourself.
 

Kokoloko85

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?

So Starfield was gonna be an exclusive before MS bought them? The game was being made and known about before the MS purchase so it was obviously meant to be coming to PS5
 

Rykan

Member
This has been done for decades and its only a problem now?

So MS is allowed to buy entire publishers and have 3rd party exclusives, Nintendo is also allowed to have its own 3rd party exclusives from Square and Sega like Triangle Strategy and SMT5, aswel as MS and Nintendo blocking Octopath traveler coming to PS but PS isn’t allowed Exclusives like FF7Remake?

Go take his fake outrage somewhere else, its funny seeing Xbox and Phil Spencers ambassador and media strategy but its pure hypocritical.

Also complaining about Bloodborne… Its a Sony IP, made with a Playstation studio. If you want everything to be 3rd party and non exclusive go start asking MS and Nintendo to make everything 3rd party too
Who says this is a problem?
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
You're reading it all wrong. Playstation is absolutely allowed to have exclusives, the acquisition is only causing problems because MS might make some of ABK games exclusive to xbox.

Nothing hypocritical in pointing out exclusives other consoles have when those other consoles are trying to block you from getting more exclusives yourself.
Hypocrisy is complaining about ABK games going exclusive to another console when you have loads of exclusives yourself.
Actually, it is only talking about Sony's third-party exclusives and completely ignoring the fact that Xbox also does the same exclusivity deals all the time. And using that as an excuse to make a case for Microsoft's acquisition of third-party multiplatform publishers.

These are just some of the games that Xbox blocked from going to PlayStation recently.
  • The Medium
  • Shredders
  • Tunic
  • Valheim
  • Warhammer Darktide
  • High on Life
  • The Gunk
  • Stalkers 2
  • Slime Rancher 2
  • Scorn
  • Ark 2
 
So Starfield was gonna be an exclusive before MS bought them? The game was being made and known about before the MS purchase so it was obviously meant to be coming to PS5
Is there a fictional FFVII Remake in the vaults somewhere for Xbox? I don't understand this obsession with a first party title that's a new IP being on a MS system. They literally pay the salary of the developers. This is the kind of stuff people are annoyed with when people laugh at Bloodborne being mentioned, which is a third party developer Sony doesn't own (yet). What about Nioh or Rise of the Ronin? What about Stellar Blade? What about tons of games. But literally the only one not allowed to have an exclusive is MS apparently. No one is criticizing Nioh or Rise of the Ronin, or suing to get Stellar Blade or FFVII or FFXVI on Xbox. Just Starfield apparently is the only bridge too far for you guys.

Stellar Blade was literally announced publicly for Xbox in 2019. Starfield sure wasn't. But even if it was, it would be fine because no one complains about Stellar Blade at all or even hardly mentions that the Xbox version got scrapped. Apparently no one cares. Did I mention that Tencent also is investing in that developer?
https://www.pushsquare.com/news/202...of-korean-ps5-console-exclusive-stellar-blade
Everyone is pursuing acquisitions and exclusivity aggressively.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom