Microsoft Games Are Going Third Party (Hi-Fi Rush/Pentiment/Sea of Thieves/Grounded release dates confirmed)

[sepheroithisgod]

3 minutes ago, majob said:

It was largely self inflicted. Putting all of their exclusives day and date on PC and Gamepass made the hardware pointless

100%. It was like Phil Spencer was speed-running how to kill Xbox hardware. How Sony is going about their PC releases is the right approach.

[Eraezr]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CaptHowdy_91]

I could very much see none of this being set in stone over at MS. They are most likely going to be experimenting with smaller titles first, and using that info to decide if it's worth it or not after. Everything being rumored feels like it could change directions just as fast as it appeared. Even if I'm not super interested in Hi-Fi or Sea of Thieves, I will probably put my money where my mouth is and support that if they get ported over, just in hopes more of their catalog comes over.

[jay_horror]

That Halo platinum is going to feel weird lol

[Vergil]

Don't have twitter X. But it would be fun to see some reaction lol

Edited February 5 by Vergil

[DrBloodmoney]

40 minutes ago, Eagle said:

All the console war and guesswork aside, glad to be seeing all this exclusivity most likely going away, even if it is purely a business move; excited to play stuff like Hi-Fi Rush in the future. Wish the opposite was true as well (that is, other games' exclusives also leaving their platforms) but alas, will only happen if it is a profitable business move in the future for whatever reason, unfortunately.

 

I would imagine the opposite will likely be the case, as Sony, unlike Microsoft, is reliant on hardware adoption.

 

I would imagine the thinking would be: Microsoft puts its games on Sony platforms, so Sony will be getting their 30% cut of each sale from every one of those games each time one sells to a playstation customer.

 

That money will then be spent on something - and the most logical move is to invest it either in development of more first party exclusives, cementing the brand, or on buying exclusivity deals with 3rd part publishers.... (which, of course, will get cheaper and cheaper, and easier and easier for them, as they become more dominant, given that 3rd party developers want sales, and developing for a console with a smaller user-base is not as profitable.)

 

That way, Sony keeps the squeeze going in perpetuity, continuing to exert an even more dominant position in the market, thus ensuring Microsoft has to rely more and more on publishing on Sony platforms for more games, which net their 30% cut, which is reinvested in more exclusives.... and so on and so on.

Edited February 5 by DrBloodmoney

[wackt1]

So is it possible we get Halo on Playstation, or are they holding on to that still?

[starcrunch061]

Well, outside of the "rah rah, Sony wins!" adolescent bullshit that's certain to come out of it, this is great news. I never thought MS wanted to stay in the console business, anyway; it seemed bizarre to lock games onto its system.

 

I would like gamepass to be a competitor to Sony's subscription service, though I doubt that dream will come to pass.

Edited February 5 by starcrunch061

[Biertje373]

2 minutes ago, wackt1 said:

So is it possible we get Halo on Playstation, or are they holding on to that still?

I honestly think that there's a pretty big chance to see Halo on Playstation, which does feel kind of weird but I also wouldn't mind.

[majob]

15 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

I would imagine the opposite will likely be the case, as Sony, unlike Microsoft, is reliant on hardware adoption.

 

I would imagine the thinking would be: Microsoft puts its games on Sony platforms, so Sony will be getting their 30% cut of each sale from every one of those games each time one sells to a playstation customer.

 

That money will then be spent on something - and the most logical move is to invest it either in development of more first party exclusives, cementing the brand, or on buying exclusivity deals with 3rd part publishers.... (which, of course, will get cheaper and cheaper, and easier and easier for them, as they become more dominant, given that 3rd party developers want sales, and developing for a console with a smaller user-base is not as profitable.)

 

That way, Sony keeps the squeeze going in perpetuity, continuing to exert an even more dominant position in the market, thus ensuring Microsoft has to rely more and more on publishing on Sony platforms for more games, which net their 30% cut, which is reinvested in more exclusives.... and so on and so on.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Sony jacked up their cut simply because it's Microsoft and the hoopla they made them go through for Activision and the COD deal. Irony at it's best.

[CaptHowdy_91]

7 minutes ago, majob said:

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Sony jacked up their cut simply because it's Microsoft and the hoopla they made them go through for Activision and the COD deal. Irony at it's best.

That's the type of thing that could get Sony sued, Apple has had similar issues in the past. I know this was probably just a joke tho

Edited February 5 by CaptHowdy_91

[Rebourne07]

This was incredible to read. Extremely well thought out points. I’m going to very much enjoy platinuming Starfield on PS5 with my Xbox Gamer Tears mug full to the brim. 

Edited February 5 by Rebourne07

[MidnightDragon]

While word is we won’t see games like Halo and Gears (honestly they can have it), if this means there’s a chance Elder Scrolls VI will come to PS, all for it. Just gonna wait for the official announcement to see. Still think it’s a bit too wild to be true, but if it is…definitely an intriguing development.

Edited February 5 by MidnightDragon

[Viper]

I get that I'm technically "Team PlayStation!" and all that, so there's this sense of pride in "my team" winning so to speak...and while this could mean the games I was worried about being exclusive to Xbox could now come to PlayStation. The thing that really worries me...if Xbox really does go the way of Sega and disintegrates into a third party publisher. Sony is going to end up getting the biggest goddamn ego we've ever seen them have. You think their big head was bad when they launched the PS3? Or now with raising the prices on everything because the PS5 is selling so well? If Sony kills Xbox, and Nintendo is all they have left...we're in for a world of hurt as consumers. Nintendo is never really seen as competition because they just do their own thing anyways...so if Sony see's themselves as the only game in town, I can't imagine that shitstorm that will come with it. 

[majob]

6 minutes ago, Viper said:

I get that I'm technically "Team PlayStation!" and all that, so there's this sense of pride in "my team" winning so to speak...and while this could mean the games I was worried about being exclusive to Xbox could now come to PlayStation. The thing that really worries me...if Xbox really does go the way of Sega and disintegrates into a third party publisher. Sony is going to end up getting the biggest goddamn ego we've ever seen them have. You think their big head was bad when they launched the PS3? Or now with raising the prices on everything because the PS5 is selling so well? If Sony kills Xbox, and Nintendo is all they have left...we're in for a world of hurt as consumers. Nintendo is never really seen as competition because they just do their own thing anyways...so if Sony see's themselves as the only game in town, I can't imagine that shitstorm that will come with it. 

Sony and Nintendo were the only competing platforms for a chunk of the 90s and that was considered a golden era. Not saying that would be the case again but Microsoft has quite honestly only been a blight to the industry and I'd be happy to see them go. Valve still exists and they've dipped their toes into hardware so maybe they can fill the Xbox's place if the brand does dissolve.

Edited February 5 by majob

[Akrioz]

Can it just happen faster? The longer it continues the more I'll be disappointed if it ain't true. Or they'll backpedal after the backlash.

I just need my Hi-Fi Rush, Phil. Maybe Pentiment. You can keep the rest.

[Viper]

7 minutes ago, majob said:

Sony and Nintendo were the only competing platforms for a chunk of the 90s and that was considered a golden era. Not saying that would be the case again but Microsoft has quite honestly only been a blight to the industry and I'd be happy to see them go. Valve still exists and they've dipped their toes into hardware so maybe they can fill the Xbox's place if the brand does dissolve.

The gaming landscape was vastly different then than it is now. We've seen what happens now, when Sony gets complacent...like they think they are now, the consumers are always the ones that take the hit. If Xbox is outright done, I can't imagine what we're in for if Sony thinks they have no competition anymore. 

[Cpt-Redding]

I mean, got to say, having never owned an Xbox i would love to play the Master Chief Collection or the OG Gears of War trilogy. Probably not likely but would be pretty savage. 

[Doodlebawp]

You're watching the next Nintendo Direct. The screen goes black. The Halo theme song starts to play.  Cut to two children playing the original Halo using the Nintendo Switch's motion controls.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 5 by Doodlebawp

[PalaceOfLove706]

19 minutes ago, majob said:

Sony and Nintendo were the only competing platforms for a chunk of the 90s and that was considered a golden era. Not saying that would be the case again but Microsoft has quite honestly only been a blight to the industry and I'd be happy to see them go. Valve still exists and they've dipped their toes into hardware so maybe they can fill the Xbox's place if the brand does dissolve.

Microsoft has contributed a lot to the gaming industry. Like you’re commenting on a trophy website that probably wouldn’t exist had Microsoft not come up with console achievements. 

[DrBloodmoney]

29 minutes ago, majob said:

Sony and Nintendo were the only competing platforms for a chunk of the 90s and that was considered a golden era. Not saying that would be the case again but Microsoft has quite honestly only been a blight to the industry and I'd be happy to see them go. Valve still exists and they've dipped their toes into hardware so maybe they can fill the Xbox's place if the brand does dissolve.

 

Assume you meant Sega rather than Sony there.

 

I do think that's true - and I'm not singing doom and gloom as some are - but I do think it's interesting that you mention Valve as the possible replacement "third player" in the console space...

...as realistically, I think they are probably the only possible company that could enter the market at this point, and have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding.

 

The thing about Sega's collapse, was that it happened at a time where it was still feasible for a new player (Sony / Microsoft) to enter the market, and compete, because each new console was essentially a complete "start over" for people.

Having played on an NES and a SNES didn't make it a fait accompli that the person would stick with Nintendo for the N64, because each console was essentially stand-alone. You bought the console based on what you wanted to play in the future - not what you played in the past.

 

Even if Sega collapsed, leaving Nintendo alone in the market, they wouldn't have been able to truly "rest on their laurels" because all it would have taken was a new player coming in with something impressive, and the competition would be right back on.

 

 

Now though, the shifts from one console to the next are fluid - and people are more engrained and tied in - not by brand loyalty necessarily, but by pre-existing ecosystems.

 

We have our specific one,  of course, - trophies/ achievements - but in a broader sense, there is the backwards compatibility, and digital libraries - it would have taken a lot more than simply "which console looks more appealing" to get someone to switch over in this generation, because the person likely has a digital catalogue of dozens - if not hundreds - of games tied into their particular ecosystem.

 

As such, it would be INCREDIBLY difficult for a brand new company to launch a brand new system now, because unless they were able to somehow tap into a pre-existing library of games (Steam, for example), the logical reaction would be "I gotta start over from scratch? Sack that!"

Edited February 5 by DrBloodmoney

[Eagle]

1 hour ago, DrBloodmoney said:

I would imagine the opposite will likely be the case, as Sony, unlike Microsoft, is reliant on hardware adoption. [...]

Good point, Doc. Hadn't thought about that. Oof.

 

17 minutes ago, Viper said:

I get that I'm technically "Team PlayStation!" and all that, so there's this sense of pride in "my team" winning, if so to speak... and, while this could mean the games I was worried about being exclusive to Xbox could now come to PlayStation, the thing that really worries me is if Xbox really does go the way of Sega and disintegrates into a third-party publisher. Sony is going to end up getting the biggest goddamn ego we've ever seen them have. You think their big head was bad when they launched the PS3? Or now, with raising the prices on everything because the PS5 is selling so well? If Sony kills Xbox, and Nintendo is all they have left... we're in for a world of hurt as consumers. Nintendo is never really seen as competition because they just do their own thing anyways, so if Sony sees themselves as the only game in town, I can't imagine the shitstorm that will come with it. 

And this is the big problem here. A lot of people in this thread (and elsewhere, such as X/Twitter) aren't happy because this means more people will now have access to MS games and a monopoly will be broken, but because it means the company they do happen to like "won" the "battle" and they also happen to get a game or two they're also interested in, on top of it.

 

This comment will probably come with a "wait a moment, didn't you say this exact thing on the very first thread about this topic?" And yes, I did. But honestly, both by not being fully confident in my ideas at the time in order to elaborate on them once inevitably confronted and by fear of derailing the conversation (which is no longer the case, now that I see new threads will just open if needed), I was beating around the bush way too much instead of just getting to the point I wanted to make in the first place and that probably made it much harder to understand what it was even about, so I'll just be upfront: if it's not MS, it'll be some other company soon – could be Sony, Nintendo, Valve or someone else entirely, maybe even corps who aren't investing into the industry at the moment. There's no long-term solution to the issue within a capitalist structure.

 

But obviously, as far as the near future is concerned, gotta be happy that at least this attempt seems to not be successful. I reckon this only shows how close we are to someone else pulling off the same stunts, however, given how easily MS passed through the should-be obstacles in their path, such as governments and their regulators...

[SwiftGuyver]

Shout out to Rozalia1 with one of the most based opening posts I've ever seen on the internet! Love it! 

 

 

Edited February 5 by SwiftGuyver

[majob]

13 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

Assume you meant Sega rather than Sony there.

 

I do think that's true - and I'm not singing doom and gloom as some are - but I do think it's interesting that you mention Valve as the possible replacement "third player" in the console space...

...as realistically, I think they are probably the only possible company that could enter the market at this point, and have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding.

 

The thing about Sega's collapse, was that it happened at a time where it was still feasible for a new player (Sony / Microsoft) to enter the market, and compete, because each new console was essentially a complete "start over" for people.

Having played on an NES and a SNES didn't make it a fait accompli that the person would stick with Nintendo for the N64, because each console was essentially stand-alone. You bought the console based on what you wanted to play in the future - not what you played in the past.

 

Even if Sega collapsed, leaving Nintendo alone in the market, they wouldn't have been able to truly "rest on their laurels" because all it would have taken was a new player coming in with something impressive, and the competition would be right back on.

 

 

Now though, the shifts from one console to the next are fluid - and people are more engrained and tied in - not by brand loyalty necessarily, but by pre-existing ecosystems.

 

We have our specific one,  of course, - trophies/ achievements - but in a broader sense, there is the backwards compatibility, and digital libraries - it would have taken a lot more than simple "which console looks more appealing" to get someone to switch over in this generation, because the person likely has a digital catalogue of dozens - if not hundreds - of games tied into their particular ecosystem.

 

As such, it would be INCREDIBLY difficult for a brand new company to launch a brand new system now, because unless they were able to somehow tap into a pre-existing library of games (Steam, for example).

No I'm referring to Sega's temporary exit from all markets outside of Japan with the Saturn from 96 to 2000. That was essentially the height of 90s releases on both the ps1 and N64 platforms. It's true that with the current landscape it would be far harder to break into the market thanks to digital libraries but I feel Valve has already taken that first tentative step with the Steam Deck so who knows. But I feel Microsoft's presence has been for more harm than good and their exit would only benefit us. Doom and Gloom over Sony being alone, which isn't technically true as is with Nintendo, is a little over blown. As it stands we're all just speculating anyway until Microsoft establishes the facts of the situation regardless.

18 minutes ago, PalaceOfLove706 said:

Microsoft has contributed a lot to the gaming industry. Like you’re commenting on a trophy website that probably wouldn’t exist had Microsoft not come up with console achievements. 

Such lovely things like popularizing paid online, games as a service, proprietary hardware, and that's just off the top of my head. Oh wait they made achievements, well that just makes things soooooooo much better

Edited February 5 by majob

[DrBloodmoney]

Just now, majob said:

No I'm referring to Sega's temporary exit from all markets outside of Japan with the Saturn from 96 to 2000. That was essentially the height of 90s releases on both the ps1 and N64 platforms. It's true that with the current landscape it would be far harder to break into the market thanks to digital libraries but I feel Valve has already taken that first tentative step with the Steam Deck so who knows. But i Fell Microsoft's presence has been for more harm than good and their exit would only benefit us. Doom and Gloom over Sony being alone, which isn't technically true as is with Nintendo, is a little over blown. As it stands we're all just speculating anyway until Microsoft establishes the facts of the situations regardless.

 

Ah, okay - late 90s - I'm too old I suppose, I was thinking the "Golden Era" is Genesis/SNES 😂

 

Apologies!

 

I see what you mean though - and yeah, TBH, I think we're essentially on the same page:

 

That no having zero competition isn't ideal, but Microsoft's specific influence on the industry and their methods trying to work within it have not really been the kind of competition that has harboured much beyond animosity in the post 360 days...

 

....and it does rather feel like they essentially created this situation themselves.

 

They seem to have been hell-bent on engineering a situation where these two companies were pretty much forced into a "There can be only one" Highlander duel...

...and maybe didn't check their own backyard before doing so.