![]() ![]() Sony had the luxury of purchasing great studios at a time where the gaming industry was still young and not as mature as it now. Yes, studios that Sony bought, studios that were once making games for all platforms and not exclusively for Playstation. ![]() You want MS to have exclusives and compete, this is how they're doing it. No they're not, they're securing games on a platform that was known for not having any games from a vocal rabid fanbase, now that same fanbase is moving goal posts and saying "no fair"! You can't have your cake and eat it too. ".microsoft is just taking games from the other platforms." Microsoft is getting new games, Starfield is a new game, Hi Fi Rush is a new game, Pentiment is a new game, Grounded is a new game, there's still Avowed, Contraband and more on the horizon, how is that even a relevant point stating "it would have been on MS consoles" anyways?Ĭan you make that same guarantee for the new Silent Hill game? How about the latest Final Fantasy? Final Fantasy Remake? What about Octopath Traveler 2? How can you say they were always coming to Xbox when Sony has as of late been aggressively securing third party games off of Xbox and even blocking them from GP. "Microsoft gamers arent getting a single new game, microsoft is just taking games from the other platforms." They likely know what they're talking about here. It goes without saying that Sony is far more successful in this space. Microsoft is also extremely wealthy and could, in theory, buy out the contract immediately after acquisition. Microsoft is not willing to split the IP from the acquisition and their commitment to a deal is clearly an effort to invite me negotiations in a decade. The argument is Sony is using this to express that they have similar concerns with Call of Duty. ![]() The whole point here is not even Bethesda. Either people will but into their ecosystem, they'll boycott it, or nothing changes. We'll have to see how the community responds when these games launch. It's their studio and if they want to keep them off PlayStation, I mean. But I suspect development for Series S and X is probably more difficult than PS5 and Series X.Įven so, Microsoft wants all games on both so this is probably the path of least resistance. Would they be better off focused on one console and PC? I mean, yeah, it's normally easier. Buuuut devil's advocate: I can also see the point that Bethesda struggles to get ONE version of games running optimally. That goes without saying, and I agree with you. Not to mention the absolute deal gamers would be getting with GP, which is another topic Not every game is going to pull in GoW, GTA numbers, especially new IPs or smaller non triple A games, but the budgets to make those games are only going up, so it makes sense to have guaranteed income of a monthly/yearly service and it's obvious that a service that offers more games will have more subscribers which will generate more revenue and won't taper off in a new release second or third week.Įspecially when CoD could be on GP and have a significant increase in GP subscribers alone, enough to where MS could take a hit on their console/PC side but more than make up for it because of the millions plus that subscribe monthly/yearly, not to mention the DLC, MTX that would come along with CoD that I'm sure makes Activision millions alone, also figure in CoD being sold on other platforms that MS has agreed to a 10 year deal with. ![]() Where are you getting the hundreds of lost income data from? You don't seem to understand that the reason most, if not all companies are getting into the Live Service, Subscription service model is because retail cannot sustain profits alone. One could say the same would have been for Starfield and any other future title from Bethesda.since Bethesda games sold better on PS.īut sure Shinoff keep making up unwritten rules that buying publishers isn't fair or not the same as Sony buying games, the only one constantly crying about what MS does in comparison is you. I mean we have examples of FF, which have all been on Xbox, so has Silent Hill and yet now those are exclusive to PS. Here's what I find hilarious, some of you go out of your way to make the excuse of "games sold better" on PS, when a game is excluisve to PS or Sony makes a deal to keep a game off Xbox, so with this logic, it's not out of the realm of possibility that Bethesda may have went with Playstation exclusivity? Since those games sold better on Playstation amiright? Gangsta_red 70d ago (Edited 70d ago and ShinoffĬan anyone of you guarantee that if Bethesda (Zenimax) wasn't purchased that those games (Starfield, ESO 6, Fallout 5) would have been on Xbox anyways? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |