• pjhenry1216@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s outselling is what caused Microsoft to not deny it. It originally denied it because they had a rule that games needed feature parity with both Series X and S. BG3 split screen couldn’t be done on S. The massive success is what led them to relax the rule. And virtually no one saw this level of success coming from within the gaming industry, including the developers themselves.

      Edit: I just realized this is being upset about Starfield.

      That is totally the fault of gamers. The biggest reason given for buying a PS5 over Xbox was exclusives. What the fuck did you think was going to happen? Sony started the exclusives battle and continually came out ahead. Obviously MS is going to fight. Making exclusives such an important decision in console purchases drove exclusives to be important overall. There’s no sense in being upset that the industrynis literally responded to gamer’s actions and stated motivations.

      • thoro@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What the fuck did you think was going to happen?

        Microsoft would develop their existing first party studios and improve the quality of their first party titles, invest in third parties that they already had exclusive relationships with, or invest in up and coming studios?

        Had Bethesda published a Microsoft exclusive since Morrowind?

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t expect that from Sony so why expect it elsewhere? Sony started this game, gamers lauded them and rewarded them for doing it. Microsoft tried to not do that, and got beat down further than they had when they tried playing that game against Sony. Gamers wanted exclusives. Microsoft is providing that. You voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party and now are surprised leopards are eating your face.

          This was a forgone conclusion for awhile now. Folks are just upset because Microsoft has an exclusive that Sony gamers want to play. Boo fucking hoo. I’m pissed it came to this, but gamers did this. I’m angry about it, but I don’t feel sorry for gamers as a whole about it.

          • thoro@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Sony started this game

            Did they, though? I think exclusives predate Sony and even the PS1. They’ve been a part of the console space since basically the inception of the medium. Xbox itself launched with an exclusive “killer app” in Halo. Timed third party exclusivity and exclusive Map Packs were very popular with the 360 when it was on top in the seventh generation as well.

            I don’t think Sony has ever made an acquisition of the same scope as Zenimax either in price or in how much of the market was fenced off from a studio they previously had access to. That’s not even going into the Activision deal.

            Maybe we can now point to Bungie, but that was still half the price. Most of Sony’s acquisitions over its time were studios that were already de facto developing exclusively for their consoles. Even Insomniac. If you look at their history, Sunset Overdrive is a lone anomaly.

            Exclusives suck, but I don’t see them going away as long as consoles and capitalism exist. You’re basically throwing shade at Sony for daring to fund the development of critically and commercially acclaimed games that gave them the reputation of having a quality first party library. Starfield on the other hand was developed as cross platform title until Microsoft paid 7.5 billion to acquire a major publisher. Wasn’t this confirmed this week by the document leaks?

            Few complain when Halo is released exclusively because no one is being surprised that those games are now exclusive titles. That isn’t the case with the new Bethesda deal.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sony and Microsoft used to pay for exclusives without buying the studios. So there’s no real meat to the argument that “oh, the games were always exclusive because first party” or whatever. The consoles didn’t really buy that many game studios until relatively recently in gaming history. They would pay a studio to not release on other platforms. This whole buying studios thing was just cheaper in the long run. So there’s no real argument to be made about Sony just making better first party games. That’s what they do now given that they own the studios. Both companies are guilty of buying out studios.

              Exclusives pre-dating the PS1 was more out of lack of technology. No cross platform tech really existed. There wasn’t a lot of crossover. Many platforms didn’t last more than a generation or two. There wasn’t even much cross over in the kind of games. If you liked fighting games, you bought a Sega over Nintendo for example. With the PlayStation, they competed against Sega first, Nintendo as more an afterthought. Xbox came in later to compete against PlayStation 2. The Nintendo 64 was just a different class, and even later, the GameCube. With Xbox and PlayStation, they had similar amounts of power and restraints (an N64 cartridge could not compete from a technical perspective against the storage of discs, plus multi-disc games could exist, not really feasible with cartridges) plus abstraction technology was more advanced and one could more easily write cross platform code. Now, you either had to pay for an exclusive or simply hope they only had the intent to target one platform (whether through preference or resource limitations). So the console wars really started to heat up after the death of Dreamcast and mainly between Sony and MS. Exclusivity wasn’t via first party existed, but not to s great extent beyond their flagship games.

              So, tldr, exclusivity has always been acquired via money and buying them. It’s easy to say it’s about developing better first party once those studios were bought outright to begin with. That’s how most first party titles exist now.

        • Eochaid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lol, Starfield was originally going to be a Sony exclusive. That means Sony was literally going to pay Beth money to deny Xbox gamers access.

          MS just made the better offer.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes they do. They used to buy exclusive rights back during PS2 days but eventually both MS and Sony realized it’s cheaper to just buy the studios. Sony has only a small number fewer acquisitions than Microsoft. Both companies have always bought exclusivity.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        My reason for buying a PS5 is my Xbone bit the dust, and my Xbox 360 also had issues when I traded it in. My ps2 and ps1 still work. There was also the fact that the only available options were PS5 or Series S. I didn’t buy the console for exclusives, I bought it because it was the better available console and my previous one was dead.

        • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok? But your experience doesn’t change what the number one reason given is though? Sure, I don’t get Pixel phone anymore either because two in a row failed on me, but I don’t go around telling everyone “no one buys pixel phones because they die easily”

          • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No I didn’t. The announcement of their intentions to fully absorb Bethesda didn’t even come out until around the PS5’s release, and wasn’t completed until like 6 months after. Not everyone pays close attention to gaming news. And if you bought the console early on, there is a chance you never would have even heard about it, let alone completely understood the implications of the purchase.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re not selling large amounts of either.

        MS is in the subscription selling business now. Their entire gaming future hinges on GamePass, and while I like the idea of games on tap (I’ve basically bought BG3 for my PS5 and nothing else in the year since I bought it, enough on PS+ to keep me going and I can barely catch up let alone keep up), I suspect the big devs that spend hundreds of millions on making AAA games are less than enthralled with the idea and if GamePass and day one “free” games win, the outcome will be more games that I’m not really interested in.

        PS+ is not as good a product as GamePass, but I believe it’s healthier overall for the gaming industry.

        • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          PS+ is not as good a product as GamePass, but I believe it’s healthier overall for the gaming industry.

          A worst product is better for the industry because gamers should pay for inferiority?

          What are you smoking?

          • Blackmist@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d rather play great games 18 months after they come out, than mediocre games on day one. What’s hard to understand here?

            The industry needs that day one £60 a box money, the same way the film industry can’t do without cinema takings.

            If it doesn’t get it, we devolve further down the predatory DLC route.

            • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If it doesn’t get it

              Then we get great titles from other studios that just repackage the same shit day in and day out.

        • Omega@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          When you say PS Plus, do you mean the Essentials tier which is (was) equivalent to Gold or the other tiers?

          For the record, I think PS Plus Premium and Extra are great (until the price hike). The vast majority of time when I want to play a game day-1, it’s not something that’s even on GamePass. So their day-1 stuff means nothing to me.

          But also, Essentials has given me enough to play I could just never run out of games.

          • Blackmist@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            The higher tiers. Not sure about the top one (Premium) any more. I got it because I thought I might want to play the older games, but it turns out there’s plenty of PS4 and PS5 games to keep me going, and frankly not enough choice of PS1 and 2 games to tempt me. A more complete library would have made sense, but I’ve literally got more on my shelf than they’ve got on PS Plus Premium.

            And my internet is too rubbish for me to want to stream the handful of PS3 games either. It hasn’t even got MGS4 which would be the one interesting thing that hasn’t been anywhere else.

    • Eochaid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s truly not surprising is Sony fanboys defending the benefits of exclusives up until Xbox has an exclusive they want.

        • Eochaid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well there’s the fact that you omitted Sony and Nintendo from your criticism entirly, despite the fact that both companies have bought numerous studios and paid other studios to make games exclusively for their respective platforms for decades, thereby reducing their potential revenue for some benefit that’s clearly obvious to those companies.

          And yet, when Microsoft does it…they are just limiting their potential market for no reason and it’s obviously a stupid business move. Sure. Seems a little sus, is all.

          Either the entire fucking industry is guilty of this “bad business practice” or maybe there’s a calculated reason for it. Pick one.

            • Eochaid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Um…Sony was in talks to pay for Starfield to be a PS exclusive - which would have taken it from PC for a year and from xbox permenantly - until MS bought Beth.

              Also, Starfield is a new IP, not an “already existing and widely popular” one…

              I’ll also mention that Phil Spencer publically admonished and fought against exclusivity agreements for years. He has said in interviews both private and public that he prefers a world where there are no exclusives. Until the market spoke and declared “exclusives” to be the measuring stick of a platform’s health, thus forcing his hand. And now here we are.