Microsoft Wants Bethesda Games To 'Show Up The Best' On Xbox

An impossibility for it to be best.

So the big games will still be on Playstation then as many of us said in the first place

@Menchi MS considers Gamepass for PC to be “their platform” so it could be best

@mousieone And Steam?

Edit: nvm I get what you're saying, still on PC after all.

@carlos82 yes but probably downgraded to make xbox look better

@Medic_Alert I think it is again a matter of time. If Starfield/ES6/Doom content have been developed for PS in the past few years why waste that? 1 year exclusivity and first on gamepass is already a big enough deal. For titles that are just starting production now they can ofc go Xbox only.

@Medic_Alert Look, I really do think there is a lot of case by case basis with these just like they’ve been saying. I don’t think it’s as cut n dry and again all this is pre-buy talk. The deal hasn’t gone through so they have some careful footing to do. However, I think k some stuff will have exclusivity in some way. Like I think New IPS will be exclusive, but TES6 maybe not so much.

@Menchi

Part of me reads "not pull content off platforms" meaning sure eso online and fallout 76 are gonna continue to get updates on ps4/ps5. I dunno they really do need after the deal is finalized to just state what exactly they are going to do

Once they finish the purchase in Q1 next year we will know what's happening. Either was i get them in gamepass so don't effect me if they are exclusive or not.

Make it timed exclusive for 2 years at XBox.

@Medic_Alert You're not wrong at all with any of it. They have alter the landscape and his statement's directly contradict Phil's earlier ones. Who to believe? I default to the first one at all times; it depends. I might be wrong, but personally, Starfield's exclusive. But the Next TES or Doom, I don't know. I do know if they put it on Sony; it's not about the console playerbase. It's about Gamepass and what will or won't hurt GP. I think they've been pretty clear from the get go that "Sony's install base" doesn't matter. It's not about recouping the funds. Which would be very hard to do on a competitors platform anyway unless it's Minecraft size. I think people don't realize that. If the title is a smaller one that doesn't sell millions of copies; MS is basically paying Sony at that point. Those titles will never make it to Sony I think. Like Dishonored 3, would be another one that I find hard to see them putting it on PS. Is it worth it? It makes more sense to keep that exclusive. But who knows and it's clear we aren't going to get the full story or picture for a while.

The business to go exclusive or not is a tough and curious answer.
Automatically now and say for this new generation to sell more game pass and more consoles you would say exclusive to Xbox brand and game pass makes sense.
Moving forward would you then put game pass on Sony and Nintendo machines which makes sense software and game pass business wise. This maybe a way of forcing the issue making the games exclusive to game pass and Xbox devices, with game pass coming to Sony and Nintendo hardware. Then you get to the point when Microsoft leave the hardware console market, once the internet infrastructure is good enough world wide.

If they don't go exclusive, then they need 6-12 months exclusive window.
Otherwise, what's the point in paying 7.5 billion just to have them on Game Pass?

Even as someone who buys Nintendo systems as his main consoles, this doesn't seem like a smart move. Just keep the games exclusive to the Xbox ecosystem. Although, tbh, Xbox is probably where I'd buy the games anyway...

@Medic_Alert If it's a first party game, I think there's more than just "timed exlusivity deals" like FFXVI. A big big biiig game showing up on XBox/GP first for a year, or more, without any cost to them for timed exclusivity is still a big deal, and it's clearly fighting fire with a bigger fire as Sony's going that route at greater cost. But it sounds like there's going to be feature differences. Basically Playstation can get the "inferior/incomplete" version maybe (isn't that what already happened with Bethesda games, though? ), maybe they get the Switch port. Maybe they get it as an episodic payment model.... MS has a history for being overly generous in the gaming space, and this might be one of those examples. It may be a case of there's only minor incentive to choose it on XB instead of PS (in addition to the fact that Bethesda games always suck on PS anyway), but MS is pulling money and pulling GP subs like crazy for it.

They seem to be mostly interested in driving GP subs out of it, which shows just how profitable GP must be despite the naysayers if buying a $7b company just to boost GP value proposition, not even anchoring exclusivity, is perfectly reasonable strategy.

That also probably indicates why XB is such a chill console to buy from - they're not desperate to nickel and dime every customer for every bit of content and focusing on much bigger pictures.

Here is what that means. 'First' means that some Bethesda releases will come first to the Xbox platform and Game Pass. It won't reach the other pc stores and platforms for a period of time. 'Better' means that while those games will be available on Xbox and PlayStation, some great content (DLCs, extra Game features) anything that make playing the games better will be exclusive to Xbox/PC. 'Best' means that some of the best Bethesda games(possibly Starfield) will be exclusive to the Xbox ecosystem.
Hope this helps

2 year exclusivity would be best, I think, if they go that route. They get the people that just flat out refuse to invest in Xbox, but for many fans 2 years is just too long to wait, and they’ll be driven to your ecosystem. I have a PS4 and an X1X, and I prefer the X1X enough that a 1 year timed exclusive deal isn’t enough to make me get it on the PS4 (like Kingdom Hearts 3).

@Kefka2589 I’m not going to lie, I’ll feel a little betrayed if MS puts their games on the PS5 after staying loyal to their ecosystem through the lean years and through this very lean launch (I have a Series X and I’m playing the same games I was 2 weeks ago). If they do, I might jump ship to being a Sony household. I have 4 XB1s in my house for my sons and myself and only one PS5, so I’ll just flip that and get 4 PS5s and only one XSX.

Edit: Rereading my post, I realize that it might come across as a bit petty, but I don’t care.

@Medic_Alert Well, if "first and free" isn't a motivator, "first and $70" for FFVXI and other Sony timed exclusives isn't either, so it's a wash.

And MS has been "generous" to a self destructive fault in the past. Namely they were just about the only publisher that didn't assume ownership of the IPs they published which used to be rule #1 in publishing. They were the "good guys" at the time, which is the reason they don't own Mass Effect, Jade Empire, Crimson Skies, and a fair few other franchises to this day. And that hurt them significantly.

As for Sony...well, it goes back to what I said earlier with the Bethesda buyout. It has nothing at all to do with hurting Sony and Nintendo, and everything to do with hurting AppGoogAzonBook, and helping anchor "traditional" hardware-software tied gaming is more or less a collusion effort between the three of them.

@Kefka2589 Well even if they change nothing at all about Bethesda and keep doing what they've been doing, but throw everything into Game Pass that's still a benefit for their customers. Paid for Halo and Forza and Fable? Great, now you get Fallout, Starfield, Doom, Wolf, Dishonored, Prey, Deathloop 2, TES included too. Have fun!

@Kefka2589 There's truth to that, and there seems to be some conflict of statement where Phil is being cagey and kind of taking no stance, and this finance guy is going with "not exclusives."

But....MS isn't playing the same game as Nintendo and Sony, either, so we can't just go by what we've been trained by the 90's console wars and Sony to assume that's what Microsoft's game is. We assumed exclusivity....or some form of it. But that was an assumption based on conditioning from other vendors. We don't know, internally, what their goals are for the Bethesda purchase. They bought Bethesda games, yes. They also bought a huge MMO vendor. They also bought IDTech to challenge UE. They've already said Amazon/Google, not Sony is their competitor. It's easy to see a future where "I want to play Fallout" means "I buy a console or build a PC" and it can't be streamed....because XBox doesn't play ball with Luna or Stadia. But does with Sony.

That's what people are missing. It is about exclusivity, but we are shaping the war as between Microsoft vs. Sony. But what if that's not the war? What if it's Microsoft+Nintendo+Sony against Facebook+Google+Amazon+Disney+Apple+Comcast? In that case sharing Fallout with Sony, but no one else, helps the console industry fight off the streaming industry.

As for sharing, isn't MLB The Show from Sony Santa Monica, is it? coming to XBox? Though that was by mandate of MLB.

Well when it comes to fallout and elder scrolls we all know what their "best" is, so no big loss on those two

Not sure about the "best on a certain console" mentality. I'm an older gamer and remember Donkey Kong on the Colecovision being intentionally made better vs the Atari and Intellivision versions.

@Kefka2589 "Sony is very clear in it's desire to literally not do a single thing different." I think that's a bigger problem for Sony than MS....

The problem is Sony's all in on their own exclusives, and they're all in on money hatting for time limited exclusives - which doesn't do much at all against the big data streaming companies. MS OTOH is outright buying publishers and IPs. If the goal is keeping some of the industry's biggest hitting games off streaming, and they really don't care about the direct Sony competition, then that's going to work. Sony doesn't have the money to keep big titles like Fallout off Luna. All they can to is temporarily hold onto them, and of course grow their own IPs.

I can see the thinking here. If MS really doesn't care so much about Sony (and heck, why should they, Sony is paying THEM to run their online network...they're getting a piece of Sony's success after all...) but is worried about other Big Data companies...fine...buy Fallout....keep it away from the other Big Data companies forever....who cares if other consoles get it? That's not the threat to their real revenues and helps legitimize their part of the industry.

I can see a few of the possible angles there. Not saying that's it, but it could be.

@UltimateOtaku91

The Elder Scrolls & Fallout series have been amazing, save for the mis-step of Fallout 76. Nice try, though. 👍🏻

Please Xbox, Just make them exclusive..

I’m so tired of this question coming up every week.

Why would they pay $7.5 billion to let Sony have 30% of the profits on the games sold? That makes no sense.

They can’t come straight out & say what they are doing because they don’t, technically, own Bethesda yet.

I would expect they will honor any existing deals Bethesda has with Sony (Deathloop & Ghostwire Tokyo) & maybe even release games far into PS5 development (maybe Starfield), along with the online games ESO & Fallout 76.

Then as new games get made, they are exclusive to the Xbox ecosystem. I’m so tired of the Sony led media fanboys asking this question in every interview. If it was Sony that bought Bethesda (not that they have the $ to even do that), they wouldn’t even ask this question. 🙄

If bethesda remains on ps5 too, my concern is that xbox wants to be a third party publisher and be the gamepass third party publisher.
Phil said, even though console gaming revenue is growing the most in revenue, that console gaming is a small fraction.

That concerns me, as xbox doesn't seem to prioritize the xbox box. Plus pc getting more games like tactics and flight sim, not charging pc to play online is concerning when it should be the other way around.

If ps5 gets a huge headstart, which will happen until maybe 2022, if they put bethesda games on ps5 because of lack of potential xbox series sales, that makes it worse.

Sales matter, no matter what Phil says. Console revenue is where xbox gets most of its revenue no matter what Phil says. If he wants mobile market, start making games like clash of clans and candy crush. They don't care about the red deads or the cyberpunks.

If xbox doesn't want to compete, playstation will get away being greedy like nintendo is with the mobile/handheld gamers and the never drop in price games. I think it's time Tencent comes into play with their rumored console. Tencent is a bigger threat than silly amazon and google. Tencent has their foot in deep.

Money doesn't equal success in gaming, as ms is yet to sell 100m consoles as a record.

@Medic_Alert Yup. I rather buy the game so $70 vs "free" on gamepass if I keep paying the fee isn't attractive to me. I won't buy an xbox as I think the non bethesda studios may not be enough.

People that think this means Bethesda games won't be exclusive are, IMO, clinging to strings.

First, Spencer himself already said it would be case by case basis, meaning there WILL be exclusivity.

This statement, IMO, is specific to things that are aleady out. Expect the Ghost Wire Tokio and Deathloop games to have additional content exclusive to Xbox and Windows, for example. Potentially all games already published getting, next gen upgrades exclusively on Xbox.

The important thing here, though, is they will not take away games that are already on the platforms. PS players will still be able to buy Fallout 4 and Skyrim. ESO and F76 will continue to get support on all platforms, PS4 included.

Ignoring all this. Only Phil Spencer's opinions and decisions matter on this issue.

I hope so because I find Bethesda games look quite underwhelming

@themightyant if I recall correctly, Spencer's statements about exclusives is specifically about timed exclusives. Specifically: paying to keep a game away from a group of players for a time window.

Even with that statement, MS still makes timed exclusity deals like The Medium. You can hunt down a video interview where he did state it was his personal taste, not necrsarely a statement on Xbox policy or direction.

@Kefka2589

That’s good to hear. I’m going to give it a shot, eventually. Especially with it being on Game Pass now. 👍🏻

@themightyant when he was not the man calling the shots, he was the man in charge of first party. His job was literally being in charge of in-house exclusives, over licensed exclusives.

The way he has spoken about players being better off when they all can play, I honestly don't think he ever means "on any platform" but instead to give all players means to play games without being hooked specifically to one box. And that is the whole poiny of Xbox now:
Xbox
GamePass on pc
XCloud on mobile
Soon xcloud on any browser
I'm sure xCloud on any smart TV will follow soon after.

One thing he has made very clear: they want their games to be on a platform that supports their full ecosystem. Achievements and Xbox live friend lists included.