• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Deleted member 26104

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 30, 2017
2,362
Is there a link that confirms this? I've seen it said many times but haven't seen proof. I imagine it just makes financial sense to release on all platforms due to licensing costs but I could see MS releasing the Xbox version of FIFA or Madden early or giving it exclusive features if this deal happens.
People can say "it's standard for licensing" or "there obviously is" as much as they want, but noone can provide any evidence/proof that there is a "all sports games have to be released on every platform on the market at all times" clause in their contracts. EAs FIFA/Madden/NBA/NHL weren't on the dreamcast. FIFA and Madden only had 1 release on the Wii U. Madden isn't on the Switch yet. They stopped releasing Madden/Fifa on the Vita.

If the console isn't selling well or forecasted to sell well, disney/fifa/nfl/etc probably wouldn't care if their games aren't on it. If the games weren't going to be on the next playstation, the forecast for it's install base would be small, and possibly not worth the costs involved.

People need to stop acting as if it is fact that Madden/Fifa have to release on every console. There is no proof to say this is true, only evidence saying it's not (dreamcast, wii u, switch).
 

Melchiah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,190
Helsinki, Finland
I don't think it's a ridiculous notion really.

MS would profit from BF, and the licences. Because obviously they are kept multiplatform.

And they get the studios capable of delivering great single player and multiplayer new IP

It's ridiculous to champion for the idea, as it wouldn't give anyone anything new, it would just restrict where people can play them. And I don't see why restrictions should be applauded.
 

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,199
Microsoft+EA games for 10 bucks a month would be killer. Or at least I'd assume EA access would merge with MS Gamepass.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,018
Florida
So they are going to blow almost 40% of their cash reserves? Considering what they will gain form it, it doesn't sound very reasonable to me one bit. I know they want to make the Xbox brand better, but the Xbox brand as a product never really made MS any money. They have semi failed this generation to reach the X360 heights in domination, and it's pretty understandable that MS realizes what are the week points with the Xbox brands and that is first party or in house studios that do exclusive work. EA is simply at least IMO isn't that. They have tons of money by making games for all platforms, and confining themselves to one is a disaster logistically from the prospective of EA. The only way it sound reasonable if they are just planning to liquidate EA and just use their assets in to make Xbox games. But wouldn't just throwing money at just opening new studios way more affordable?

This would be as much about protecting Windows as promoting XBOX .
 

Hindle

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
1,449
Exclusive for XGP sure but DICE is capable of working on multiple games at once and get at least a game out on an annual basis. Battlefield is their baby. So I don't see that happening.

The big issue with a move like this is that MS would have to follow up an expensive acquisition by dumping a ton of money in new projects and R&D. That is a huge push in a sector that they have showed marginal interest in. That said, if the big tech companies decide to make this their battleground there are only a handful of companies that are worth acquiring and EA is one of them.

I think that's changed. They see it as a way where they can make the most money. Minecraft and the money it makes turned a lot of heads at MS. And the potential for games pass is huge.
 

NinjaScooter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
54,152
Everything 3rd party would remain 3rd party.

The studios would also work on new IP for Xbox and games pass.

The part of this that is hard to reconcile is that resources are finite. If DICE are making Star Wars and Battlefield multiplatform games every year that are raking in the revenue how do you justify pulling them (or one of their teams) off of that to have them make a new exclusive IP that caters to a fraction of the audience?
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
People can say "it's standard for licensing" or "there obviously is" as much as they want, but noone can provide any evidence/proof that there is a "all sports games have to be released on every platform on the market at all times" clause in their contracts. EAs FIFA/Madden/NBA/NHL weren't on the dreamcast. FIFA and Madden only had 1 release on the Wii U. Madden isn't on the Switch yet. They stopped releasing Madden/Fifa on the Vita.

If the console isn't selling well or forecasted to sell well, disney/fifa/nfl/etc probably wouldn't care if their games aren't on it. If the games weren't going to be on the next playstation, the forecast for it's install base would be small, and possibly not worth the costs involved.

People need to stop acting as if it is fact that Madden/Fifa have to release on every console. There is no proof to say this is true, only evidence saying it's not (dreamcast, wii u, switch).
These licensing agreements don't say "all consoles," but they have agreements about type of platforms, levels of viability, and what the licenser can mandate. There is no reasonable situation where not releasing on PlayStation would be acceptible.
 

Hindle

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
1,449
The part of this that is hard to reconcile is that resources are finite. If DICE are making Star Wars and Battlefield multiplatform games every year that are raking in the revenue how do you justify pulling them (or one of their teams) off of that to have them make a new exclusive IP that caters to a fraction of the audience?

To keep the best talent from leaving those studios and teams, I think you would need to promise them a chance to create thier own universe. Like, make us a new IP, but can you also consult on BF etc.
 

Kill3r7

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,430
I think that's changed. They see it as a way where they can make the most money. Minecraft and the money it makes turned a lot of heads at MS. And the potential for games pass is huge.

Agreed that Minecraft is arguably one of MS best acquisitions in the last decade but buying EA is something completely different. It would be a huge boost for XGP but also a massive undertaking tying up the company to videogames for the foreseeable future. The counter argument is that only a handful of publishers worth buying and once companies start acquiring them there is not much you can do.
 
Last edited:

NinjaScooter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
54,152
To keep the best talent from leaving those studios and teams, I think you would need to promise them a chance to create thier own universe. Like, make us a new IP, but can you also consult on BF etc.

That's good in theory, but seems hard to put into practice when there is this expectation (from both consumers and shareholders) that a Battlefield/Star Wars game come out every year. It just doesn't seem like a sustainable model, and leads me to believe that the ultimate long term goal of an EA purchase would be to eventually make Xbox GamePass their platform as opposed to a dedicated gaming box.
 

IIFloodyII

Member
Oct 26, 2017
23,977
Why are people still thinking there's anything to this after the fanfiction follow up?

Battlefield is established. A new studio could take on the IP nd it will still sell the same.

Dice can create a new franchise that's on par with Halo, and that's what Spencer craves the most.
DICE are a mega studio, they can do both and probably faster than anyone else in the industry.
 

Hindle

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
1,449
That's good in theory, but seems hard to put into practice when there is this expectation (from both consumers and shareholders) that a Battlefield/Star Wars game come out every year. It just doesn't seem like a sustainable model, and leads me to believe that the ultimate long term goal of an EA purchase would be to eventually make Xbox GamePass their platform as opposed to a dedicated gaming box.

With BF, there are rules that have to be abided by. Limitations.

With a new IP, Dice and MS would be free to create thier own world. As I said, MS badly want a studio who can make them the next Halo. A multimedia franchise that spans everything and only they would see the benefits.

Dice can do it.
 

NinjaScooter

Member
Oct 25, 2017
54,152
With BF, there are rules that have to be abided by. Limitations.

With a new IP, Dice and MS would be free to create thier own world. As I said, MS badly want a studio who can make them the next Halo. A multimedia franchise that spans everything and only they would see the benefits.

Dice can do it.

I get why they would want to do it from a creative standpoint, but if you were an executive, how would you justify greenlighting a new AAA IP exclusive to one platform and allocating the necessary resources that would require from a studio that ships huge, successful multiplatform games on a yearly basis? I mean, hell, once the multiplatform cat is out of the bag and you are already publishing games on that platforms, how do you justify making that new IP Xbox exclusive and ignoring the 100 million PS4 users?
 

Mass_Pincup

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,129
Hardware is still a major factor. Not every market has the revelent internet speeds for digital to fully take over just yet.

It's a major factor for sure but since MS is slowly trying to distance themselves from that I don't see why they would pump that much money to sell a product that they feel is on the decline.
 

Moose the Mooche

User-Requested Ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,538
Netherlands
This was just on the news at BNR radio in the Netherlands.:

Big news for sure and if true i hope they will resurrect some old franchises like a Dead Space reboot or something.
I think EA is in good hands with MS and i can see MS will push the lootbox shit out of the door. But personally... i dont really like MS just buying, or trying, complete companys to get marketshare or more games for their platform.. but thats just bussines i guess and happens everywhere.. might have something to do with their future plans with xbox as a service.
 
Nov 12, 2017
2,877
1st party exclusives are pretty different from a 3rd party becoming one.
In that remotely and not happening case ..isn't like there's someone who is stopping people from buying a console Ms ...u can have those games ...
Exclusivity is just exclusivity stop acting like there's something philosophical and deep behind that ....what should be the differences? That people used to play it on another system and then they cant? Like Street fighter? If someone would like this much battlefield and others EA games IF IS remotely possible that someone make it exclusives...should just choose the console where they are. End of the story
 

Mass_Pincup

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,129
Like when they released two new pieces of hardware in the last couple of years?

They're supporting thei current generation of console, it's a normal thing to do they want the brand to be alive.

That says nothing about their vision on where the brand is going to go in the coming generation.

Game Pass, the Xbox Play anywhere initiative, Xbox basically running on W10 and Nadella's comment about Xbox being broader than the console business actually do.
 

Erock

Member
Oct 28, 2017
70
Hilton Head, SC
It's ridiculous to champion for the idea, as it wouldn't give anyone anything new, it would just restrict where people can play them. And I don't see why restrictions should be applauded.

You, like quite a few in this thread, simply don't get what MS is doing, nor have any understanding on the direction MS is going and working towards.... Sony and Nintendo are about the traditional console model IE: Make hardware, make strong first party games, push hardware and sell as many units as possible...

Microsoft on the other hand is getting out of this model, and going to a more "Netflix" type of model where it's all about software, and a lot less about what hardware you actually play that software on... This all started with the advent of Play Anywhere, that was the first piece of the puzzle. Opening up a lot of it's big Xbox exclusives as titles that you can play on PC, on Xbox, or both. That was huge and that was MS saying we don't care where you play our games at, or what you play them on, we just want you to play our games...

The 2nd part of this was opening up Xbox Game Pass, which is basically Netflix for videogames, and was done quite well, specially with first party games being on there on the same day as their retail versions. This is opening up a whole new market for games, and for different genre of games as well. I might not be inclined to go out and buy that great linear story driven game because it only lasts around 12 hours or so and has no multiplayer....But when I can have access to that, plus all the other games I want to play out there for one low monthly fee, then suddenly I will give that game a shot, as well as many others I otherwise probably would have never tried....For the price of 2 retail games a year, I now have access to 100s of games a year... There's no if's ands or buts about it, that is one hell of a good deal.

And this, if it turns out to be true, would be the 3rd piece of that puzzle. First people need to understand what MS is intending to do with something like this, it's not about buying up EA to make all of it's games Xbox exclusive. That is not MS's goal. What MS want's access to is the studios and EA's IPs. If MS bought EA, I have no doubts that they would continue to publish all of the current games multi-platform. And in fact, that is MS's biggest goal, it's to get it's software out there on as many devices as possible (more on that in a bit under part 4), but what MS really wants, and needs, is studios to make it's own exclusives.... MS has plenty of great IPs going all the way back to the OG Xbox days, they just don't have the studios to really tap into all of those great properties. What buying EA gives MS is talented studios that can develop their own IPs and help create brand new ones... So part of this is MS wanting to get it's software on as many devices as possible, and that does include Switch and PS4, and the other part of a deal like this would be for MS to develop more of it's own, exclusive software as well. A deal like this would not signal MS getting out of the hardware business, quite the opposite actually, it would however signal that MS wants to be the number one video game publisher across all platforms, but also wants to give it's own hardware a healthy dose of exclusive content as well. Sure you can play a lot of MS games on different devices and platforms, but you will get a bonus of exclusive content if you go out and buy a MS console. After Xbox One X, it's quite clear that MS is in the hardware market and in it to win it. But they are also trying to expand the publishing market, and want to develop videogames as less platform driven and more software driven.

The 4th part of this is actually the streaming part, as MS just bought another videogame tech streaming company. MS wants to open up a streaming service that will allow you to play Xbox games on any device, regardless of hardware... Cell phones, tablets, PCs, etc. This would truly be Xbox Play Anywhere, as it could stream it's software over to really any device which would further open up it's games to an even wider range of people. This isn't something that is going to happen tomorrow or anything like that, but this is something I think they are clearly working towards and want to do.

On one hand this sounds like a completely crazy idea that has no chance in hell of ever happening.....On the other hand, a deal like this would make too much sense for MS not to do, and would fit perfectly on what MS is trying to do and the route they are going.....And please, let's drop the talk about EA being too big for MS to buy.... Anyone offering that up as evidence of this not happening clearly knows nothing about business, MS or EA. MS is a FAR bigger company than EA, MS makes many times more money a quarter than what EA makes in a full year. EA shareholders don't care about EA, they like all shareholders care about one thing, money, and that comes down to the bottom line. If MS offers them more price per share than what their current stock is valued at, it would be a massive win and profit for them, and they would easily approve the take over in a heart beat. And it would be, even at a much higher price, still a drop in the bucket for MS.... I don't think this "could happen", I think it WILL happen, and we would probably hear about this going down before E3 this year...I really think this could be the perfect fit for MS, and make EA a stronger, better company to, as well as help MS open up a brand new business model in the video game industry that could really make things better for all games. Going to be really exciting to see what happens with this...


*Quick Edit*******

Another big part of this that I forgot to mention is Xbox backwards compatibility... MS want's it's full library of games, from OG Xbox all the way through Xbox One and beyond to always be available on one system. They have been working hard towards this for quite some time and it shows with Xbox One X... Xbox one games still play on it, as well as 360 and OG Xbox. Down the road, when MS releases a new Xbox, you will see developers stop making games for Xbox One, Xbox one X will become the new "base" hardware, and the new release will be the high end version. But all Xbox One, 360 and OG Xbox titles will still work just fine on the latest generation of Xbox hardware.... This is pretty amazing actually, now when you upgrade hardware, you don't have to worry about your back catalog of games not working, they will carry over. This is increasingly important as we move more to a all digital format, to be able to have access to every game you have ever bought on any Xbox system. Very cool stuff and all part of MS's bigger plans.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 26104

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 30, 2017
2,362
These licensing agreements don't say "all consoles," but they have agreements about type of platforms, levels of viability, and what the licenser can mandate. There is no reasonable situation where not releasing on PlayStation would be acceptible.
what about a situation where PlayStation is only expected to sell 20 million consoles vs 75 million xboxs?

Ms did respond to someone and said they had no plans to buy ea it was posted inthe ms forst party thread.

You mean the response from 2009 that keeps getting posted? Lol
 

Melchiah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,190
Helsinki, Finland
In that remotely and not happening case ..isn't like there's someone who is stopping people from buying a console Ms ...u can have those games ...
Exclusivity is just exclusivity stop acting like there's something philosophical and deep behind that ....what should be the differences? That people used to play it on another system and then they cant? Like Street fighter? If someone would like this much battlefield and others EA games IF IS remotely possible that someone make it exclusives...should just choose the console where they are. End of the story

So, did you support the idea of Street Fighter going exclusive to the same extent as this, or say, Rise of the Tomb Raider?

In any case, we aren't talking about a single franchise here, but several which masses are accustomed to play on their platform of choice. That choice would be stripped away from them, if e.g. Bioware's games would only be available on MS platforms.
 

Deleted member 20297

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
6,943
So, did you support the idea of Street Fighter going exclusive to the same extent as this, or say, Rise of the Tomb Raider?

In any case, we aren't talking about a single franchise here, but several which masses are accustomed to play on their platform of choice. That choice would be stripped away from them, if e.g. Bioware's games would only be available on MS platforms.
When a new gen starts, people are then free to choose the platform where the games they like are. Right? If you want to play Street Fighter 5 this gen, you have to buy a PlayStation. You go where the games are.
 

Melchiah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,190
Helsinki, Finland
When a new gen starts, people are then free to choose the platform where the games they like are. Right? If you want to play Street Fighter 5 this gen, you have to buy a PlayStation. You go where the games are.

And people have been free to choose either platform to play EA's games. Exclusivity to MS platforms shouldn't be a boon to anyone. After all, you can play the games on XB either way.
 

Deleted member 20297

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
6,943
And people have been free to choose either platform to play EA's games. Exclusivity to MS platforms shouldn't be a boon to anyone. After all, you can play the games on XB either way.
We are arguing about exclusivity in general here, I think. Ni No Kuni, for example. Why doesn't the game get a release on Xbox? Because it doesn't sell there? Or any other game that is exclusive to a platform from 3rd party in general.
It doesn't matter what you are used to - new gen, new decision to choose the platform where you want to play. Many people chose PS4 although they had a 360 and already a huge catalog to play, even digital. Didn't stop from switching over.
For example, there was Crash Bandicoot on Xbox, this gen it seems it's only on PlayStation (for whatever reason). So if you want to play CB, buy a PlayStation 4.
 

Melchiah

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,190
Helsinki, Finland
We are arguing about exclusivity in general here, I think. Ni No Kuni, for example. Why doesn't the game get a release on Xbox? Because it doesn't sell there? Or any other game that is exclusive to a platform from 3rd party in general.
It doesn't matter what you are used to - new gen, new decision to choose the platform where you want to play. Many people chose PS4 although they had a 360 and already a huge catalog to play, even digital. Didn't stop from switching over.
For example, there was Crash Bandicoot on Xbox, this gen it seems it's only on PlayStation (for whatever reason). So if you want to play CB, buy a PlayStation 4.

The lack of sales may be the reason for why some Japanese games aren't released on XB, but the same really can't be said about EA's games on PS. In fact, it's the opposite with the current userbase, and outside of NA. That's also why I don't see the big moneymakers abandoning PS, whereas Bioware's titles could be more realistic exclusive candidates.

Many people chose 360 over PS3, and PS4 over XBO, for better performance, price, and/or larger userbase, knowing they could continue to play EA's games either way. Belittling the lack of choice in this scenario seems absurd to me.
 

RPGam3r

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,513
EA's catalog being exclusive to the Xbox brand would be a pretty big deal. I think this would make for some interesting changes in the market, and would definitely make up for MS lack of first party exclusives.