Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It just means Microsoft is smart. Games being exclusive to one specific console was a big mistake that Sony/Nintendo/etc... made when the consoles were at their zenith. Microsoft knows that you can instead make better money if you can just have your games on everything OR they can get away with making something PC+Xbox only because they've got the biggest market share.

Really, this probably means the deathknell of consoles that aren't Xbox. The game options for other consoles will simply shrivel over time.

The thing is exclusive titles still work - heck its why Nintendo has continued to survive.

HOWEVER What MS have realised is that exclusive titles are a limited time deal. Those people who don't buy their console, for whatever reason, aren't going to buy it ever and when they do its second hand because its reached the end of its profitable lifespan. So instead of losing sales there; they instead have looked at increasingly bringing things toward PC ports. Why not; once a few months/year or two have gone by the exclusivity has lost its effect; you've new exclusives out. So it doens't matter if the game comes to PC for other customers - however it does mean you can now profit off them.

Also, esp for console to PC, because it unlocked some things that you can't do on consoles or can't do as easily; there's going to be a body of existing fans who cross buy the game.

Having exclusives for Game Pass makes sense.

Having exclusives for XBox makes less. Game Pass gives them the best of both worlds.

When I say X-Box exclusive, read that as "Not on Playstation". They'll obviously be on PC, as that's been MS's strategy for a while. Hell, it's becoming Sony's strategy.

Occasionally "X-Box exclusives" also eventually include Nintendo consoles, see Ori and the Blind Forest.

Be exclusive to Xbox for X number of months then release on playstation, switch and pc.


The first few months you corner the market for the diehard fans you know will buy your console for those games; the rest of the market then follows.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
They said they will be on Game Pass products. Which Microsoft is trying to get on to Playstations.

Sony's doing their own Game Pass.

They are, that doesn't mean that an Xbox Game Pass on Sony products is impossible. In fact, Microsoft and Phil Spencer want that very badly. Xbox does not have a big market outside of the US in comparison to Nintendo and Playstation. Of the three, they have the lowest international foothold. They would love to get their games out there and being played on every possible console.

 Overread wrote:
Be exclusive to Xbox for X number of months then release on playstation, switch and pc.

There are plenty of games that could do that but don't, sticking with their console exclusivity*.

The argument is always made "why cut out a section of the market when they could sell to the others as well", yet they don't. Bethesda only confirmed that.

*Again, I'm not including PCs here. There's a growing amount of parallel console/PC releases these days, largely because PCs don't compete with consoles in the same way as MS and Sony compete with one another.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
They would love to get their games out there and being played on every possible console.

No they want people playing games on their console.

It's amazing that crossplay even exists, and how resistant was Sony to that?

True and I think 1 console, switch and PC is a viable option. The Switch is a console, but visually worse on the big screen than the other;s but works because of the mobile so its different; the PC is again a different market.

So yeah having games on just one console makes sense because the consoles are in direct competition with each other; pcs and switch less soo (though who knows Nintendo could push that envelope with a new switch and might have too with the steam mobile option on the horizon)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Be exclusive to Xbox for X number of months then release on playstation, switch and pc.

There are plenty of games that could do that but don't, sticking with their console exclusivity*.

The argument is always made "why cut out a section of the market when they could sell to the others as well", yet they don't. Bethesda only confirmed that.

*Again, I'm not including PCs here. There's a growing amount of parallel console/PC releases these days, largely because PCs don't compete with consoles in the same way as MS and Sony compete with one another.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
They would love to get their games out there and being played on every possible console.

No they want people playing games on their console.

It's amazing that crossplay even exists, and how resistant was Sony to that?

How has Bethesda confirmed that? I don't see how Bethesda has confirmed anything. They are saying now it is a game they are keeping with Game Pass. So Xbox and PC. They are trying to get Game Pass on Playstation.

Xbox has almost 0 presence in Japan. In Asia, it is much the same. Xbox consoles really only sell well in the US and parts of Europe, where they are still beaten out by Sony. Microsoft has been putting much more focus on their crossplay and their game library vs console sales. So Xbox getting people to play games on consoles in other countries where Xbox has no presence is a pretty big win for them, they already did it with Nintendo.

Sony was the one that originally pushing for crossplay, then when Microsoft said no they got mad and shut up. Them holding out was really just them holding a grudge for Microsoft being dicks before.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
They are trying to get Game Pass on Playstation.

I've heard people say Nintendo is going to put Mario on PlayStation and other silly things over the years. Unless you have an official MS source stating that I wouldn't believe it. Like even a little.

We'll see GamePass on a Nintendo system before a Sony system.

https://www.techradar.com/news/ps5-and-nintendo-switch-wont-get-xbox-game-pass-because-those-platforms-dont-want-it

They have already tried to do it once. This is word directly from Phil Spencer.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
How has Bethesda confirmed that?

Starfield. Elder Scrolls VI.

Oh great, so they are open to the idea of putting it on other consoles if they can get Game Pass on there, as per your articles? Like I have been saying?

It's literally the best of both words XD

They get to have their games on other platforms and skill make them 'exclusive.'

Pretty much. Still have to pay them for their service, but you can play it on other consoles. That is the long term goal Phil has been working towards for years. Nintendo and Sony are both very insular companies. They are very wary of things like this.

Sony didn't want to do it for a long time because it kept Xbox down, basically. Now Xbox has maneuvered around it by buying a lot of game companies. Big game companies that sold units for Playstation. Curious how long it will take them to cave.

Honestly, it's probably just a question of time before Sony, Nintendo, and anyone else follows suit. Then they all get their piece of the pie.

Given the chip crisis and how hard it is for them to actually make consoles right now, it makes sense for these companies to start focusing more on software distribution than their hardware. There are many people who have been trying to buy a PS5 since they came out.

Except Nintendo, they really should stay in the console market just because they have handhelds cornered right now. Phones are great for gaming, but they are no Switch.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
They have already tried to do it once. This is word directly from Phil Spencer.

"Tried to do it once" isn't the same as "they are doing it now" which is what you keep saying. If anything that linked article just reinforces that GamePass isn't coming to PS.

Consoles have never been particularly profitable to begin with. Nintendo is the only name in the game that makes hardware cheap enough to pull a profit out of. Since the 360/PS3 era, most consoles have been developed and sold at a loss with the lion's share of the profit coming from software sales and licensing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

It's amazing that crossplay even exists, and how resistant was Sony to that?

Ask Square-Enix, I suppose? Or is Final Fantasy XI not included?

 Ahtman wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
They have already tried to do it once. This is word directly from Phil Spencer.

"Tried to do it once" isn't the same as "they are doing it now" which is what you keep saying. If anything that linked article just reinforces that GamePass isn't coming to PS.

Yeah, it is an ongoing thing. They want it to happen. I have never said "they are doing it now" but I have said they are trying to do it now. Because it is an evolving situation.

The only thing the article reinforces is GamePass isn't coming to PS right now.

It's worth mentioning, that back in the 360 era when the PS3 was recovering from its stumbles out of the gate, Sony was pretty keen on cross platform play and it was Microsoft invested in keeping Xbox Live siloed. It's always about market dominance.

I thought this was an interesting video, having grown up over most of the time period shown




I can see Microsoft wanting to get content on the other console platforms just because they are so far outsold by them

 Flinty wrote:


I can see Microsoft wanting to get content on the other console platforms just because they are so far outsold by them

I'm sure its influenced by the fact that Microsoft isn't completely invested in a specific platform. Nintendo and Sony? Their only outlet is their consoles. Microsoft is so so much more than that. They've always done PC games and then later got into consoles, but they also completely control the non-gaming side of the computer industry. Hardware and software. They are inherently more diversified and flexible in their outlook, while Nintendo and Sony are pretty much defined by their gaming systems.

Sony's pretty diversified too. It's just that in the US their market presence isn't quite as extensive as it is else where. Between electronics, movies, software, music, and various high end tech stuff, Sony is at least as diversified as Microsoft.

Sony has their hand in a lot of other things, heck a few years back they carved out a significant chunk of the camera world (beating back Canon and Nikon dominance).

Sony has deep pockets and video games are again only one of their outlets.



Nintendo might actually be the weakest in terms of diversification. Far as I'm aware consoles and games is all they do; or at least the majority for them.

Nintendo is definitely the weakest, though I don't know that that means much. Nintendo is unique among the three console makers as a company solely dedicated to games because that's their entire business. It has serious advantages.

Indeed, they don't have to fight for resources. Sony's Video game division has to fight for Sony's resources with all the other divisions and departments and investment opportunities.

Nintendo is just games so whilst there will be fights for who gets developed, its a different playing field.

Of course the reverse is also true, Sony can prop their video game department up with profits from other divisions if there's a poor trading time and if they make a blunder or mistake that leads to their video games floundering for a while.
Or, like sony did with cameras, those other profitable divisions can allow them to sink insane money into product development. With cameras they basically jumped ahead of Nikon and Canon in sensor development (for a time and it might even still be true, Nikon was using sony sensors).




So there are benefits and downsides to both.
That said Nintendo has always had the most "wild" attitude toward things. Which is curious because their whole company rides on it and yet they are the more experimental. Sony and MS are much more "stick to what works" in many respects.

Nintendo's big advantage is that they are incredibly flush with cash for a modern company. They have relatively little pressure from shareholders and enough savings to operate at a loss effectively indefinitely. I think people are forgetting the value of their brand when it comes to diversification though. Licensing their characters is probably more lucrative than the games themselves at this point without even talking about The Pokemon Company.

I think Microsoft is certainly in an interesting position. We've seen over the last decade Xbox pivot away from a piece of hardware and become more of a social network platform. I think successfully shifting the brand to PC (essentially just renaming Games for Windows) means that they can cultivate the name to adapt to wherever the industry goes, even if just as a cloud based subscription service.

Sony has always been the least innovative of the three. They see what works, they take what works, and they polish it to be the best version out there. Their big gamble has probably been VR and it will be interesting to see how much further the next generation takes that.