Pete Hines says PlayStation owners can still play Bethesda games, as long as they already...

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,673   +1,728
TechSpot Elite
"Ugh" indeed 🙄
Yes they own them, but that is recent. Bethesda has been making games for BOTH Microsoft and Sony for a LONG time, but now stopping it That is the difference compared to Sony's exclusives. Sony hasn't done that.
So as mentioned above by Rdmetz will Sony let Nixxes publish on XBOX because it is "recent"? And what does that have to do with it?
 

RaXoR

Posts: 222   +159
When MS first bought Bethesda, I predicted the exclusivity route right away. Many friends and people argued that it would be stupid and they'd lose on revenue. Thing is, this is what sells consoles which they need to increase their ROI in order to break even and then make profit. As much as I hate it for playstation owners to get screwed over in this way, it is going to happen. I am lucky enough to have a powerful PC I can play any future Bethesda game and xbox exclusives while also owning a PS5 for PS exclusives. In the end, this will upset many fans of the studio but it will all just shift the balance one way or the other as it tends to historically.
 

terzaerian

Posts: 987   +1,430
Bethesda was on thin ice with me long before selling out to Microsoft.

At this rate I'm going to be quit of gaming mainly because I've come to despise pretty much every developer out there rather than any sense of "growing out of it".
 

Norsiiii

Posts: 84   +110
When MS first bought Bethesda, I predicted the exclusivity route right away. Many friends and people argued that it would be stupid and they'd lose on revenue. Thing is, this is what sells consoles which they need to increase their ROI in order to break even and then make profit. As much as I hate it for playstation owners to get screwed over in this way, it is going to happen. I am lucky enough to have a powerful PC I can play any future Bethesda game and xbox exclusives while also owning a PS5 for PS exclusives. In the end, this will upset many fans of the studio but it will all just shift the balance one way or the other as it tends to historically.
Console sales are not the money-maker though. It's been common knowledge for many many years now that both Microsoft and Sony sell their consoles at slim to no margin, with the intention of making their dough off of game sales, service subscriptions, and ancillary high-margin revenue sources associated with their ecosystems.

So the strategy of making a game (which is high margin) platform exclusive in order to coax gamers into buying your console (low/no margin) becomes a lot more tenuous because you're betting on the assumption that the small number of PS players who will buy into Xbox instead will then ALSO spend enough on further Xbox games and services to make you more profit than if you'd simply sold the game to them on PS in the first place, which is no guarantee

MS aren't dumb, they're very much aware of all of this. If they weren't, then it probably would already have been confirmed that everything is going to be exclusive. The fact it hasn't leads me to thinking that they're likely to play things a little safer, being either some exclusive games and some not, or timed semi-exclusives.

The sheer cost of developing massive games like a new TES title is into the hundreds of millions now, not even MS could justify chopping off a third of their player base in the mere hope that enough PS will jump into the xbox eco system and spend on other xbox games to make more extra sales than they lost
 
I remember when Microsoft bought Minecraft and everyone said Minecraft will never be on playstation lol.
This is different Bethesda is a now a first party developer for Microsoft and show me any first party exclusives that have been released on Playstation
 

Difference is those exclusives Sony has either is from a developer owned by them or the developer just always made games for them. Meanwhile, Microsoft is taking a developer that has always made games for both of them and is now withholding.
Actually Bethesda made games solely for Microsoft before any of this Morrowind was an Xbox exclusive and Oblivion had been a timed exclusive. So, much like Sony and it’s acquisitions, Microsoft and Bethesda had shared a exclusivity connection as well.
 
I remember when Microsoft bought Minecraft and everyone said Minecraft will never be on playstation lol.
One last thing, have you seen a Rare game appear on Playstation since Microsoft bought them? No you haven't and it will be the same with Bethesda from now on.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 87   +76
One last thing, have you seen a Rare game appear on Playstation since Microsoft bought them? No you haven't and it will be the same with Bethesda from now on.
Rare never released games for Playstation before MS acquisition though, they released games for Nintendo mostly, so not exactly the same I think, Sony never had any titles developed by Rare in the first place, unlike Bethesda and Sony.

But I am not suggesting MS will release any/all Bethesda games for PS (because I honestly have no idea what MS plans on doing), I am just stating that I don't think MS and its acquisition of Rare is the ideal comparison, as no Rare games were ever released on Sony's platforms to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Microsoft would be fools to make Bethesda games available on Sony. Sony have exclusives that they withhold from MS and this is a very effective tactic at getting users to buy your console. Maybe Ms can do a deal, TES6 on PS for God of War on Game Pass or something?

Microsoft has so many ways to monetize their 1st-party games that they, financially, don't need to keep them locked to Xbox, which is why all of the upcoming Series X/S games are also coming to PC. A person buys a PC, Microsoft makes money because of the Windows license. They get Xbox Games Pass, Microsoft makes money because of that. They decide to purchase the game on PC? Microsoft makes money because of that. The revenue and profits flow back to Microsoft regardless of system (Xbox or PC), which is why they're being system-agnostic going forward when it comes to 1st-party titles.

In actuality, it's Sony that has to keep the system exclusitivity paradigm going, since they have no other financial means to monetize their 1st-party games that wouldn't involve a direct competitor profiting. Putting them on PC or Switch means that Microsoft or Nintendo gets a slice of that revenue, even if they have to pay Sony a licensing fee (and the licensing fee will always be less than the revenue split, otherwise why bother?).
 
Console sales are not the money-maker though. It's been common knowledge for many many years now that both Microsoft and Sony sell their consoles at slim to no margin, with the intention of making their dough off of game sales, service subscriptions, and ancillary high-margin revenue sources associated with their ecosystems.

So the strategy of making a game (which is high margin) platform exclusive in order to coax gamers into buying your console (low/no margin) becomes a lot more tenuous because you're betting on the assumption that the small number of PS players who will buy into Xbox instead will then ALSO spend enough on further Xbox games and services to make you more profit than if you'd simply sold the game to them on PS in the first place, which is no guarantee

MS aren't dumb, they're very much aware of all of this. If they weren't, then it probably would already have been confirmed that everything is going to be exclusive. The fact it hasn't leads me to thinking that they're likely to play things a little safer, being either some exclusive games and some not, or timed semi-exclusives.

The sheer cost of developing massive games like a new TES title is into the hundreds of millions now, not even MS could justify chopping off a third of their player base in the mere hope that enough PS will jump into the xbox eco system and spend on other xbox games to make more extra sales than they lost

You're exactly right.

The reason why Microsoft is being system-agnostic when it comes to their upcoming 1st-party releases (meaning they're going to be available on both Series X/S and PC), is because the profit split is so heavily in favor of game sales, not system sales. Further, with the increased technical similarities between the current consoles and PCs, many people who would've purchased an Xbox have, in the meantime, purchased a gaming computer that they'll be able to consistently upgrade over the years, and still be able to play all of the Xbox games they want due to them being available on PC as standalone titles, or part of Xbox Game Pass. Regardless, the revenue and profits still flow to Microsoft.

The real squeeze is going to be put on Sony. They are going to be dependent on 1st-party titles, as the people who want the best performance and visuals are going to be on PC (advantage: Microsoft), you'll still have millions of people with Xbox's who simply don't want to build/buy/deal with having a PC (advantage: Microsoft), and when game developers see that the user-base for their game is significantly larger when you combine PC and Xbox users versus ONLY PS5 owners, the financial decision is made clearer if you exclude Sony throwing a bunch of money their way (advantage: Microsoft).

Also, and this isn't spoken about enough, but Microsoft is such a bigger company than Sony, that if they really wanted, they could financially run deficits when it came to console sales just to squeeze Sony even further. Hell, Microsoft has enough free cash to BUY the entirety of Sony (not that it would ever happen due to a variety of regulatory and cultural factors), so they aren't sweating the console sales advantage that Sony has, or the generalized feeling that Sony has better 1st-party titles. When looking at it from a pure numbers game, Microsoft has a huge advantage in almost all metrics going forward, precisely because they both DON'T NEED gaming to be a big percentage of their bottom line (whereas for Sony, it's their largest division in terms of revenue), AND they have the resources to make it a juggernaut if they wanted without needing to shrink other divisions to do so (whereas Sony has to deal with the give and take from other divisions).
 
Rare never released games for Playstation before MS acquisition though, they released games for Nintendo mostly, so not exactly the same I think, Sony never had any titles developed by Rare in the first place, unlike Bethesda and Sony.

But I am not suggesting MS will release any/all Bethesda games for PS (because I honestly have no idea what MS plans on doing), I am just stating that I don't think MS and its acquisition of Rare is the ideal comparison, as no Rare games were ever released on Sony's platforms to begin with.
Wrong Rare released games for both Sega and Nintendo consoles which were the biggest sellers at the time so yes it is relevant.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 87   +76
Wrong Rare released games for both Sega and Nintendo consoles which were the biggest sellers at the time so yes it is relevant.
I am fully aware that Rare released 2 or 3 titles for Sega MD/Sega CD, and even a title for Amiga/CD, that is why I said "mostly" Nintendo, so I clearly meant most, not all, you either don't understand the definition of "mostly", or you ignored my use of the word entirely, because the vast majority of what Rare released was for "Nintendo", and they never released anything for Sony, so I remain correct on both counts.

To jog your memory of what Rare Studios released.

As I said, it is not an apples to apples comparison, hence, not ideal, MS acquisition of Bethesda is not the same as their acquisition of Rare in that regards, Rare was never on Sony consoles in the first place, unlike Bethesda games, so once again, I am correct.

There was no preexisting relationship between Sony and Rare (and no Sony customers of Rares because of it), unlike Sony and Bethesda (and Sony's customers), so it is not easy to declare if or if not MS will release Bethesda games on Sony platforms based on MS acquisition of Rare alone I think, they are not exactly the same situation, quite different in fact.

But, if MS does make Bethesda games MS exclusive, then it would be a more valid comparison I think, because then we would have both acquisitions as a baseline, it would give us proof positive that MS is willing to make acquisitions of previous MS/Sony game studios and make them MS exclusive. But what we have at the moment, is that MS Rare and Bethesda acquisitions are not identical thanks to Bethesda having a preexisting relationship with Sony and Sony customers, whereas Sony and Rare did not, so it is difficult to make the claim that MS Rare acquisition is proof positive of what MS will do with Bethesda as it currently stands.

And we don't have other game studio acquisitions by MS that represent an identical comparison to MS acquisition of Bethesda either, where MS acquired a game studio that released games on both Sony and MS, and then made them MS exclusive (unless I am missing some, and if so then let me know, because those would be more ideal comparisons). But I believe we have examples of Sony doing exactly that with some/all of their multi-platform game studio purchases (correct me if I am wrong), so we do have baseline comparisons for Sony in that regard, but we don't for MS, so we have much less baseline comparisons to make in regards to MS and their game studio acquisitions, which makes predicting what MS will do more difficult in comparison (for the time being at least).

And I have no dog in this fight, whatever MS does will not affect me personally, so whether MS does or does not make Bethesda exclusive doesn't concern me (which is why I have no opinion on the matter, and as I said I have no idea what MS will do, and I am not going to put any thought into it either, because it just has no bearing on me either way), and the same goes for Sony, so I am not championing either company, I am just being logical, as you should be. And what I see is all angles from a business perspective, I see the benefits if MS were to keep Bethesda multi-platform, or multiplat with some exclusives and/or timed exclusives, and also if they were to go completely exclusive with Bethesda. So I see it from a business standpoint, as I am an business man myself.

And I was not taking a dig at Rare, Rare has indeed released some tremendous titles over the years, I never said otherwise, I am in my 40's now mate, and I have many a Rare game in my collection (with many varied platforms/games in my position going back to the 80's). And I wasn't taking a dig at MS (or Sony) either and never was, so read my posts from that perspective, I wasn't being hostile towards you, you just took it that way. I know you feel passionate about the topic, but it is sometimes best to keep such passion in check when having reasonable discussions, to help oneself think clearer, because you misunderstood my original post entirely thanks to your passion, so it has indeed affected your reasoning abilities to an extant when going by your response to me.
 
Last edited:

Lounds

Posts: 915   +814
One last thing, have you seen a Rare game appear on Playstation since Microsoft bought them? No you haven't and it will be the same with Bethesda from now on.
Sorry what happened to Rare? Oh yes that's rest they made a bunch of mediocre games that didn't sell as well as their coworkers who made other games such as the staff who left Rare to make amazing games such as Timesplitters series which sold in their millions and still loved today. Microsoft are in the business of making money, maybe there will be exclusive games for Xbox but I'm sure there will be multiplatform games being made as Microsoft needs to make a return on it's investment.
 

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 3,158   +872
Staff member
This would never be a question if we had physical copies.

How? That makes no sense. First of all, you can still get physical copies of most games. But what do physical copies have to do with whether Bethesda even releases any future titles on PlayStation hardware? You lost me.

Title is kind of dumb, he didn’t exactly say that.

Of course, he didn't say exactly that, which is why there were no quotes in the headline. What he said was:

"There are Xbox brands that exist on other platforms, first and foremost. I think that's important to note. Minecraft didn't just stop existing on anything once Mojang got bought by Xbox. It's a massively played game on all of these other platforms. It's not a, 'Sorry, you're never going to get to play anything by Bethesda again.' Certainly, there are going to be things that you're not going to be able to play [on PlayStation]."

To paraphrase--There are games that are owned by Microsoft that already exist on PlayStation. Those aren't going away. You will be able to play those games now and into the future. BUT there are going to be games that you are NOT going to be able to play on Playstation.

So yeah. He actually did say that. Although he did not mention any titles specifically, I'd bet that Starfield and TES6 will be two titles you will not see on PlayStation, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future. The best-case scenario for that is M$ milks TES6 (or any other future Bethesda title) for everything they can, then and only then will they release to the wider PS market.

I could be wrong. After all, things can change very quickly in this market. Someone else mentioned trade deals, like releasing God of War on Xbox in exchange for releasing TES6 on PS. I don't think that will happen, but who knows?

I remember when Microsoft bought Minecraft and everyone said Minecraft will never be on playstation lol.

Minecraft already existed on Sony hardware. Minecraft came out on PS3 in 2013. Microsoft bought Mojang in 2014.
 

AMN3S1AC

Posts: 85   +54
It has always been the community, and their mod projects, that makes Minecraft so successful. If Microsoft made it exclusive, the negative feedback and withdrawal of mod support from the community would probably ned the widespread enjoyment and adoption of the game.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,339   +3,423
How? That makes no sense. First of all, you can still get physical copies of most games. But what do physical copies have to do with whether Bethesda even releases any future titles on PlayStation hardware? You lost me.
"Thanks for not taking away titles we already own"
 

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 3,158   +872
Staff member
"Thanks for not taking away titles we already own"
I didn't say he said that either. That was a snarky jab at the fact that he said PS owners can still play games that have already been released on the PS platform.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,339   +3,423
I didn't say he said that either. That was a snarky jab at the fact that he said PS owners can still play games that have already been released on the PS platform.
I didn't say you said that, was referring to it though. It's not impossible to think that can actually happen.
 

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 3,158   +872
Staff member
I didn't say he said that either. That was a snarky jab at the fact that he said PS owners can still play games that have already been released on the PS platform.
I didn't say you said that, was referring to it though. It's not impossible to think that can actually happen.
That's what I get for trying to respond to more than one comment in a post. lol

But yeah the scenario of digital games just disappearing is all too real. I mean it was just recently that Sony customers got panicked they might lose their digital library of PSP games. Of course, Sony did not let that happen by keeping a server open to store all customer purchases, but still. There is nothing saying Sony couldn't plug the plug on that tomorrow or the more likely scenario of a catastrophic failure of their systems.
"We're sorry, but due to a hack on Sony systems, all digital libraries have been wiped. The data is unrecoverable. We're sorry for this inconvenience." lol

I know. I exaggerate, but still... *** the Rosland Capital says, "There's nothing like physical gold that you can hold in your hand."