Mobile Hit 'Stumble Guys' Will Be A Timed Console Exclusive For Xbox

What happened to Fall Guys? Is that still a thing?

Is it kind of how PubG showed up, went super viral, and then Fortnite took over and dominated the genre so much that now people forget about PubG?

Why am I not surprised it is a mobile game developer that ripped the name, and even art style.

Reminds me of how the Stellaris mobile game stole art from Halo.

Hopefully it runs better than Fall Guys though. Constantly getting awful frame dips when playing on my Series X. Probably another game that fails to support proper, modern, display tech, again, like Halo.

@Utena-mobile it's now lobbies of 40 and still very popular at the moment. You can still get into games within a minute.

How long until Stumble Guys sell to Epic who dismantle it because they own Fall Guys anyway? 😂

Reminds me, I need to go do an Aldi shop.

@WOBNIARP You beat me to it. I was going to say that Epic would be circling this in 3...2... 😅

Fall guys was fun and and you can use a limited amount of skill and know how to best people more regularly. But the wonky physics and low skill ceiling make it easy to put down. If there's one online genre for super casuals and kids outside of subway surfers, its these type of games.

In fairness, @slatyatpion, there is an enormous difference between a timed exclusive of a mobile game, and a never ending 'timed' exclusive of something like Final Fantasy 7. You can legitimately say that people will have bought a PlayStation 5 in order to play FF7, there is not a chance in hell that anyone will buy a Series X or S in order to play Stumble Guys, particularly so when it will be on the PS5 in a matter of months.

The unfortunate truth is that Stumble Guys is about the pinnacle of third-party exclusives that Xbox will have seen this generation. Think on that for a moment. It is indeed shocking at how poor the games are that Xbox manages to secure as third-party exclusives (timed or otherwise), and that is entirely down to the split of gamers on the PlayStation (70%) compared to the Xbox (30%), and thus the huge compensatory costs that Microsoft has to pay to Developers in order to get a game as a third-party exclusive. It also explains, in absolute terms, why Microsoft are outright buying companies like ABK...

@BeerIsAwesome I wonder if I make Wobble Guys if they'd buy it off me, I'm happy with a few thousand in my pocket! 😂

There's two things going on here, with regards to my comment, @slatyatpion. The first is that there is, as I said, there's massive difference between this third-party exclusive and a console selling third-party exclusive. I don't think there are any double standards on display here; Xbox would do the same, if they were in a position to do so. However, and this is important, the market share that Xbox has means they cannot secure any AAA third-party exclusives. Quite simply, any developer considering exclusivity with Xbox will be asking to be compensated for the 70% in sales that they will lose by not being on the PlayStation. There are quite simply no games that were they exclusive to the Xbox that could generate a return that would accrue that 70% that Developers would be demanding. In other words, there is not a single game that would attract sufficient new gamers to the Xbox eco-system (be it consoles sold or new Game Pass subscribers). This is the reason why Xbox has not seen a single AAA (or arguably even a AA) third-party exclusive this generation, whereas the PlayStation (which only needs to compensate for a maximum of 30% in lost sales) has had several.

Secondly, any game that has not been released cannot, by virtue of the fact that it has not been released, be taken away from another console. Starfield was not taken away the PlayStation because it has never been released on the PlayStation.

The other thing is that Starfield being such a high-profile game is often discussed as having been taken away (it wasn't!) but many, many other games will have suffered the same fate without us ever knowing because they do not have the same high profile. So when Sony buys a Developer that subsequently brings out a game as an exclusive to the PlayStation, we have no idea whether that game was initially going to be multi-platform and changed allegiance once bought. It probably happens far more often than we realise. However the same still stands, you cannot take something away from someone that never had it in the first place.

Ultimately, the one true thing that stands all tests is that companies have exclusives in order to attract people into their eco-system, and therefore if you really cannot do without a particular game, then you have to capitulate and buy the requisite console. Xbox do it, and so do Sony. And neither company is ever going to stop doing it (unless they stop trading!)...

I get what you are saying, but don't agree, @slatyatpion. I don't think either of us will change our minds, or would be able to persuade the other. That said, I'm right...! 😂

Slightly veering away from the main subject, but I think it would be fair to say that the Starfield that Bethesda would have put out two years ago would have been completely different to the one that will appear in a couple of months. Pushed out two years ago it would have been the oft cited bug fest that Bethesda was known for. Potentially, it would have been a disaster upon release, much like Fallout 76 was, but probably worse, considering the scale of the game that Bethesda was/is chasing. If Microsoft had not bought Bethesda, Starfield would likely have been a permanent PlayStation third-party exclusive (similar to FF7), but it would have been an entirely different beast to the one that will release on the Xbox this coming September. The extra two years in the development oven, baked with Microsoft money, will likely have elevated this game well beyond what was originally planned...

Whilst I absolutely agree that Microsoft could see Starfield released on the PlayStation to great success, @slatyatpion and potentially see a bump of around 70% in sales, the problem with them doing that is that the entire ethos of making games exclusive to a platform is to bring gamers into an ecosystem. It's precisely why Sony have been so eager to sign so many third-party exclusive deals (and make many of them permanent rather than timed) because they are well aware that gamers will join the PlayStation ecosystem if they know that the only place they can play said game in on a PS4/5. It's why Starfield is an Xbox exclusive too; Microsoft want people to buy an Xbox or subscribe to Game Pass in order to play it. If the game were available on the PlayStation too, then people would simply play it there instead, even if it meant waiting a year for it to release on that platform. So for Microsoft to release the game on the PlayStation too it would basically be an act of self-harm, as they would potentially lose console sales and Game Pass subscriptions, even if the release were to be staggered by a year or more, because if people knew it was to release on the PlayStation in 2025, for example, many would simply wait it out (as did many, whose preferred console is the Xbox, waited for the likes of Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathloop)...