By costing 70€ and there being a cheap alternative without having to buy extra hardware. I know a few that didn't want to spend 70€ on Gears tactics and got gamepass for it.
EU approves Zenimax acquisition by Microsoft
- Thread starter Xando
- Start date
- Status
If Elder Scrolls releases on PS5 it won't be in the same 1 - 2 years (or possibly longer) that it releases on MS platforms. MS have already said they want games on their platforms to be 'first or best' it's pretty easy to see that in such a scenario those that won't buy into the Xbox platform won't get it first. But there will still be some that do buy into the platform and get the game.
Those that didn't buy in after a couple of years probably had no intention of minimum picking up even a trial subscription of a Series S anyway.
Now that this is officially a done deal in every way, let's hope Bethesda's IP's shine brighter than ever and that the devs have it good.
Every Steam customer is a gained Windows 10 customer over Linux, MAC and older Windows. And many modern Windows 10 licenses come with the Game Pass app pre installed. Steam is a trojan horse to convert PC people to Game Pass and keep them in Windows 10. Also, Steam allows Xbox Live on their platform which is a crucial KPI. Sony only allows MS accounts.
I've heard this before, that on Minecraft for Switch you use Live but on Playstation you don't. Why would Microsoft change it only for Sony?
That's a bit of an oversimplification of what I said; and obviously I know we are talking about studios already working with Windows/Xbox. If you remove technology choices from people working in tech, it often doesn't go well, is really what I'm getting at. That's particularly true the higher you go up the chain of "technology command."
But we don't know how prescriptive MS will be in the first place.
Sure they can, but they already own a very similar device (their PS5). It's harder to convince them to get a second console.
It's like selling boats. I can sell to anybody who thinks my boat's got features they want, but it's much easier to sell someone their first boat (the PC player with neither XSX or PS5) than it is to sell someone their second boat (the person who already has a PS5).
I don't think you're entirely incorrect in your arguments here; MS would totally put their games on PS5 under certain conditions. But those conditions are undoubtedly:
- XBL accounts mandatory
- Game Pass accessibility
- Limitations on version of software (IE the Xbox/Windows PC gets updates and features first)
I'm not exactly sure. I think it may be because Sony publishes the PlayStation versions of Minecraft.
This changed with the Bedrock update. Mojang couldn't bring the Bedrock update to PS until Sony allowed the use of Xbox Live profiles for it since that's what Minecraft runs on now. It's published by Mojang directly now.
There are very few people who own a boat in the first place (ie. either PS5 or XSX). So MS has to convince potential boat owners that their boat is the boat to have, rather than try to convince the existing boat owners that they should get a second one.
I agree, that was my point. Sorry if it's not clear, my back is currently in pain and I'm not as clear headed as I should be lol
Should work 100% perfectly on your Macbook
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22304614/xcloudweb.jpg)
Here’s a first look at Microsoft’s xCloud for the web
A public preview of Xbox games in your browser is coming soon
www.theverge.com
Ah ok, but the thread doesn't actually frame the MAU as the highest of any platform and the thread is only a half page long. I'm guessing most people don't actually know.
Minecraft went cross-play with "Play Together" Update in 2017. PS didn't add it until the very very end of 2019 when Fortnite et al had dragged them kicking and screaming into the cross-play universe. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but thought I read that the Live backbone was needed for Nintendo to cross-play because their Nintendo online is fairly un-good. I think that was part of the easy fix for friends lists and other functionality for cross play.
On PC or PSN, you wouldn't need that support.
Oh, yeah, sorry, there's no thread about that specifically; and even if there were, it'd likely have been locked, anyway. Platform comparison threads don't exactly have a history of ending well.
I mentioned the 90s because you were criticizing my claim of them "practically inventing crunch".. so yes, I elaborated on what you decided was a relevant point of mine to call out.
edit: Sorry, missed this in my last reply.
The ps user can do what we did back in the day, sell our system and play a new one for a few years. GP is a no brainer with a wide variety of games. I doubt they would not like the selection unless they are looking for games that realistically can't be found on there. (God of War/The Last of Us) which at that point you have to ask how unaware are they to how this whole video game landscape works.
fair enough, but at least there won't be so many people showing how much they understand NUMBERS and MONEY and BUSINESS based on starfield being exclusive or not
They will, and they'll claim to understand them better than Microsoft. :P
Who is saying this? Ive missed it cause I havent followed this thread but I would report the posts if I saw them.
I never saw downfall of MS stated but one poster here whose Uncle works at Nintendo implied that There would be Bethesda devs disappointed that they could no longer release games in Playstation and this leave their job
No problem, take care of yourself, back pain can be debilitating (luckily never experienced it myself).
Working for Microsoft has to be a dream job, console warrior stuff doesn't feed you. Work with some of the smartest people in the world, get paid outstanding salaries, use cutting edge tech. That's why people obtain jobs. To challenge themselves.
Ok so, the problem I always have with this logic, is that in order for it to make sense, it would have to make sense universally... not just limited to an edge case like Bethesda.
If MS thought that releasing a game on PlayStation would make people more likely to purchase an Xbox in the future, then this should already have held true for IP they've owned for years. Whilst PS4 was out there kicking XB1 around effortlessly, surely it would have made sense to release past Halo or Gears games onto PS4 in order to potentially poach some of that huge PS4 audience into grabbing an XB1 for their latest (timed) exclusive instalments? So why does this never happen? Not just with MS, but with Sony and Nintendo also.
The most likely reasoning I can come up with, is because they have reason to believe people won't pick up their console for the latest release. That instead they'll play the new Uncharted or God of War at the time, and then pick up Halo or Gears once the exclusivity window is over. After all, despite the wait, their console will now receive both PlayStation and Xbox output, whereas Xbox would only have a subset of that... which makes it a less likely purchase at any point in time, not more.
A $1.8 trillion company casually goes on a buying spree and spends more than $9 to $10 billion just to strengthen their first party and Game Pass catalogue. Then their CEO and VP of Gaming comes out and says that Bethesda acquisition is only the start and acquisitions will continue as new opportunities pop up. In the meantime Game Pass adds nearly one million new members every month. And yet there are some people here saying "Microsoft wouldn't want lose that PlayStation money and they sure will publish Starfield, Elder Scrolls 6, etc on PlayStation!". Lol, ok.
My whole idea is the fact there are people who won't buy an xbox, if Microsoft want them in gamepass then they need to show not tell. No amount of "buy an xbox because gamepass rules" is gonna work. And MS has already said they don't care where you play in future, they want you on gamepass. They've said they'll put gamepass anywhere they can platform wise. Sony won't allow it and it doesn't make sense to throw all their games there in that case but a few to draw customers to be tempted to try gamepass on a streaming service? Yeah makes more sense. You can't focus on them wanting you to buy an xbox when they don't care if you do or not anymore, if you get gamepass they're happy. Their focus going forward is to get as many gamepass subscribers as possible, xbox, pc or streaming devices it doesn't matter. If Sony and Nintendo allowed gamepass on their system then Microsoft would put it there.
That's why they didn't do it before, they had no need when the old business model relied on selling consoles to bring in customers to make them a 30% cut per sale. They aren't focused on that model anymore, they're focused on long term subscribers for the future and honestly that's both bad and good. I love the original xbox hardware and I love my one x hardware. I also love how the series x has been designed and the system itself and can't wait to get one. Microsoft can make some really awesome hardware and it'll be sad if the future doesn't have that as a focus point, but long term it makes sense for a company to focus on streaming on any device their service can and not on selling consoles at a loss to play the same games.
Yeah, I'm lost here too. I don't think they need "PlayStation Money".
If MS decided to publish games in PlayStation. That would make sense. If they decided not to, that would make sense as well. The thing about $1.8 trillion dollar companies is they figure out how to maximize their profits.
I never would have guessed years ago that MS would buy Minecraft for $2Billion and keep it on PlayStation and Switch, or that MS would find PC success on Steam, but here we are.
I expect nothing, but I'm open to the possibility of anything at this point.
Microsoft wouldn't want to miss out on that Playstation money, but that only pertains to Zenimax games. Other stuff? For some reason that makes more sense to stay exclusive.
Imma go out on a limb and say no video game developer has ever quit due to not being able to develop for a particular system. Like, 0% chance that ever happened.
The difference is that PC isn't a competitor and neither is Switch which only get games that could actually run well on it.
Agree about anything happening at this point though.
I've said this before, but Zenimax had "PlayStation money" before the acquisition and didn't think their business was sustainable long-term. So I'm not sure why doing the same thing with the same studios is something Microsoft want to do.
Like, what benefit is there to keeping everything on competitive systems, slapping an Xbox logo on the box and calling it a day?
Yeah, and the number of Switch ports could even get smaller as current-gen only games start to roll out, even with the potential "Switch Pro".
Thank you for the updates.
Minecraft was already a thing and it would be kind of silly to just not release the game that has already been established. It's a game designed to be shared by everyone.
steam and switch are competitors though- a customer is going to have limited $ to spend on gaming, and $ spent on Steam or Switch is market share not going to MS. However, MS found in more beneficial to work WITH their competitors in specific circumstances
It didn't make sense because the IP growth potential depended on being Muliplat.
zenimax IP are already established as well. MS want to get ROI on their Zenimax purchase by growing the IP they just aquired. But they also want to grow Gamepass and their console business. It's not illogical to assume MS would consider a mixed strategy.
Because feelings and stuff
But your point of Zenimax failing with multiplat money makes the Xbox needs multiplat money funnier and I'm keeping that one in my back pocket
It could be simple as Starfield for PS5 'later date perhaps', Starfield with Mods and DLC 'Free with Gamepass' first on Xbox/PC.
Thing is, streaming doesn't really change this notably from the model that was already in place. Yes, now MS wants you to subscribe to Gamepass, but that doesn't actually change the conversation regarding placing their IP on PlayStation. Before you'd have say Halo 4 ported to PS4 and then if the player liked it, you would be hoping they would then pick up a Xbox One to play Halo 5. Now, you'd port say Starfield to PS5 in the hope that they buy a Series X to play Starfield 2 via Gamepass. The economics or this still work similarly, you don't gain this user as part of your ecosystem unless you convince them to make a further commitment.
Now, I already know what you're thinking as you read the above... "But you don't need an Xbox for Gamepass. They can simply stream Starfield 2 without buying the console"... and this is true. But then it also negates the point of porting Starfield 1 in the first place, because MS can "show, not tell" to bring people into their ecosystem, without having to create ports that may carry the side-effect of actually convincing that same user they don't need to join the ecosystem at all, so long as they exercise a little patience. A PS5 user with enough interest in Starfield to drop $60 on it, has numerous other options to try the game directly via MS' ecosystem without another hardware purchase.
- Status