Xbox Boss Reiterates Platform Exclusives Will Be Determined On A 'Case-By-Case Basis'

@themightyant I'm surprised he's still going on about this when it comes to ES6, especially since the FTC court case drama where a leaked email had him saying every Bethesda game going forward would be exclusive. New and existing IP. And that was apparently decided back in 2021, 8 months after that deal closed. So why bother spouting the same old case by case basis rubbish.

Maybe everything will be Xbox exclusive expect legacy or retro content re-releases or ports will be released everywhere like the recent Quake 2.

@themightyant
It’s all about what is best for business and their strategy going forward as it evolves.

I mean you could make more money per game going multiplatform but then you may lose out on gamepass subscription and console sales money.

I guess Microsoft’s heaven would be to have gamepass on all consoles PS5 / Switch probably through cloud but even direct download if they wished the extra time to do it.

ES6 is years away, but let's not kid ourselves, it's very unlikely to come to PS consoles.

Starfield is number UK chart sales.

@themightyant "But don't give us the tired "it's really about giving players choice" line Phil, even the most devout console warrior should see that doesn't hold any weight."

He never said games will be available to everybody, it's about giving players more options, something they DON'T have when it comes to Playstation or Nintendo exclusives. I'm a PC player, I was given the choice to play Xbox exclusives without owning a console, localy or through cloud.

Phil is a great person, but at the end of the day he is still corporate guy, you need to pay attention to the meaning, not the words.

If it’s an Xbox Game Studios game (soon to include Activision) it will be Xbox exclusive. You don’t spend $7 billion on Bethesda and $70 billion on Activision and not have the games exclusive to shift consoles and GamePass subs. Anyone under the delusion that any Activision game other than CoD (unless they have a loophole) and any Bethesda game including Elder Scrolls 6 will ever see a PlayStation release is just plain dumb.

@Jimboss a leaked email is just an email. Things can change and we have already seen Quake and Quake II remasters come out everywhere. Even if they aren’t new surely they fall under “existing”.

@themightyant yea I agree - basically something like Quake 2 isn’t going to shift consoles (or allegiances) so why not sell it everywhere and get that PS/Switch income too. Something new and exciting though like an Elder Scrolls has that power so will be exclusive. Though I wonder about the rumoured Oblivion remake…

Not gonna pretend that if I was in Microsoft's shoes I wouldn't make everything that wasn't a long established IP with a few exceptions exclusives. Even with all the acquisitions and in 10 years of dev time I'm doubtful it'd be enough to inch out of Third Place. Their other biggest problem is a lack of Third-Parties, especially Japanese games. Yeah they said they're working closer with Square Enix, but that's one dev, and one dev that favors Sony as of now. They need the smaller studios behind them, and I think an easy temptation is to take the Steam & Nintendo approach and advertise they won't censor games like Sony does. Would either give Xbox an edge over them in that regard or cause them to change that aspect to compete better. Right now they need anything, and while FF14 is a big step and a big game, it is just one game. Maybe they have more in the works, but I said that last year after the last Square ports, sooo...

@themightyant @Jimboss It reminds me of when Microsoft did all those ads in the UK (newspapers, London underground, etc.) about the Activision acquisition bringing CoD to more players soon before the CMA announced the acquisition being blocked in the UK.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the CMA either don't accept the new deal that Microsoft proposed (the one about Ubisoft having the cloud rights for 15 years) or announces a phase 2 of the investigation very close to the extension deadline in October.

@Jimboss I guess it is all about the purchase of ABK and the drama with CMA and other regulatory boards, part of a "tactic" to show Xbox as an underdog platform holder that needs all the help it can get.
The case by case thing with Bethesda, as @themightyant said is probably just about live-service games. There are already examples with Fallout 76 and ESO. These games thrive on having the highest player count possible. Same reason why Sony lets Bungie have their games on Xbox (yeah technically it was a condition bungie probably discussed before being bought but that's why Sony agreed to it).
Starfield has already increased sales of Xbox dramatically, generated a ton of positive buzz around Xbox and it is printing money for Microsoft too. There is no way big wigs at Xbox and Microsoft don't want to repeat this experience.

i should imagine one of the numerous re-releases of starfield will be multiplatform because it would make more money when the need to be an exclusive is long past.

Can't believe this is news again. Phil Spencer must feel like he's in Groundhogs Day the way he gets asked the same question over and over again.

Seems like Starfield is a great success as an exclusive. Until I hear otherwise, I will assume ES6 will go the same route.

@Maddie47 Totally agree. I think they're banking on the Xbox ecosystem being much bigger by the time Elder Scrolls 6 comes out, so they'll definitely keep it exclusive - or at least heavily timed exclusive. Perhaps even launch it with next gen hardware to shift units.

As for ABK. I think a fair few of their IPs will be exclusive too - such as Crash / Spyro etc... but as for CoD, they know full well they can throw exclusive benefits to Xbox Game Pass subs. One cool skin (because the cool kids can't resist) would be more than enough to entice a sub.

As for the topic at hand - don't I recall internal emails from MS clarifying all Beth games would be exclusive? Starfield certainly isn't suffering for it. That's for sure. MS may well always fire it to PS in a years time.

Whatever the case - MS needed to do this to fight back against Sony - who were buying timed exclusives left right and center.

@themightyant MS only started to release their 'exclusives' on PC the same day/date in about 2016/7. Before that, they either never came to PC at all or got released much later so the 'choice' to play on the day of release was extremely limited to 'just' the Console.

Now, everyone can potentially play Starfield. It may not be on their Competitions 'console' Hardware, but that doesn't mean that those Gamers don't have a LOT of choice to decide where they want to play - its not 'buy a Series S/X' or miss out entirely, like you have to buy a PS5 to play Spider-Man 2 on release (even if it does come to PC a year or so later). You can play on PC - whether its a Gaming PC for 'native' play or via Game Pass Cloud, and basically any 'cloud' enabled device - its also on Steam too so also on Steam Deck - therefore not even 'exclusive' to Consoles as the SD is a 'hand held console'!!

Just because its 'not' on Playstation, that doesn't mean that they have 'reduced' the amount of 'platforms' they can reach. Without 'Xbox', this game would likely not be available on 'Cloud', therefore can't reach all those various Cloud enabled Platforms - mobiles, TV's, Laptops etc - Almost any device with a 'browser'.

Therefore Phil isn't lying as you have 'Far' more choice today than you would have. The Choice would have been PC, Series S/X or PS5, now its PC, Series S/X, or ANY of the many platforms that support Cloud gaming - Mobiles, TV's, handheld streaming devices, last gen Xbox hardware etc and even Steam Deck (another Console) - a LOT more choice for the Gamer and you are 'never' required to buy an Xbox Console to play or 'miss-out'. So many 'more' can play on the day it launches on 'more' devices than ever before - therefore Phil is not lying - their games are on MORE devices, giving Gamers far more Choice on which 'device' to play on and I bet that most, if not all PS gamers have a 'device' they can play Starfield on - maybe not the 'best' way to play, but still an 'option' if they can't/don't want to spend hundreds on Hardware for a single game.

What choice does Playstation offer? Answer, they don't!! You want to play Spider-Man 2 for example, its 'ONLY' on Playstation - at least until its popularity and 'sales' drop, then it may get a PC port and/or added to PS+ to extract any extra 'income' they can from it knowing its not 'selling' Hardware anymore...

@themightyant

Summed it up perfectly.

I don't mind if those games were exclusive coz I don't care about those games. I only care about JRPGs. As long as it's available on PC, I'll be happy. I do hate exclusives tho, when it's by third party companies sticking to 1 platform only.

@themightyant "Xbox games have come to PC for years, this isn't about that at all. This was specifically about whether they will be platform exclusives, nothing to do with PC, and the line about "giving players choice" is just straight up corporate BS."

The fact Xbox games (exclusives) are on PC and specially now, on cloud (pretty much any existing hardware), is exactly all this is about. It IS corporate speak, but it's just not BS, they are making their games more available (and accessible), unlike Sony and Nintendo. People don't play Xbox exclusives only if they truly refuse to play them.

@themightyant “it’s about giving players choice” is basically a marketing slogan by this point, and on most situations it comes followed with the “streaming/PC/Xbox console” as “choose”.

It’s almost like BK’s “make it your way (so long your way is that we fire-grill the meat)”.

As for the multiplayer games, I think it’s going to depend heavily on whom is making it. For all purposes Redfall was a multiplayer game, even solo play demands being online, yet it’s still Xbox console exclusive.

I think multiplayer games from existing IP, from Activision (not all of ABK) or Zenimax will be multi-platform. New IP will likely remain Xbox console exclusive. Anything done by pre-existing Xbox games studios (coalition, 343, etc) will be Xbox exclusive regardless what form such game takes.

Edit: anything with the name Minecraft on it will likely also be forever a multi-console release.

@Jimboss

So why bother spouting the same old case by case basis rubbish

Yet they releases Quake 2 remaster on all platforms. It’s a lower profile release, but it’s proof that they will indeed work on a case-by-case basis.

If other platforms wants es6 they can just sign a deal with MS.

@themightyant due to leaks, we know Redfall was planned with micro transactions. It was only post acquisition that the team managed to convince management to drop them since Zenimax was no longer in the position to demand such service game models. But basically, the day Phill walked in and said “you are no longer doing a PS version”, the plan was still a standard multiplayer service game.

This is what leads me to believe that “new IP”’ is key for acquired publishers going exclusive. That is not to say all legacy IP will remain multiplat. Can see Wolfenstein 3 going either way, and Elder Scrolls 6 going full exclusive.

@Tharsman I'll believe that when I see it. It's one game. Quake 2 isnt going to make anywhere near the same money as starfield or the likes of ES. Instead of dancing around it just come out and say it's an exclusive. End of

@Jimboss even if they literally just make all the “low earners” multiplat and the high earners exclusive, it would be true.

If sounds that your issue is that that won’t tell you that high profile games will be exclusive. And honestly, I think all high profile games going forward will be Xbox console exclusive, the only game I see potentially making it to PlayStation is Wolfenstein 3 and the rumored Spyro “4”, if it’s real.

@Grumblevolcano

Never gonna happen. The investigation moving to a phase 2 yet again would take way too long and move MS and ABK past their deadline, and they aren’t going to extend it again and the CMA has to be aware of that. This was more about the CMA saving face themselves and squeaking out a few more concessions in the process.

MS will absolutely close this deal before their new deadline, with or without the CMA’s approval and there is no question at this point they will get that approval. There will be no need to close over the CMA. I expect it will be announced in the next week.

I think when Phil talks about giving gamers choice this is more about accessibility through form factors then true choice.

He isn't promoting to put all the MS games on Sony or Nintendo consoles. He is promoting the ability to play in a variety of different ways on different form factors for XB. aka XB Console, Cloud, PC, Tablet, and Phone.

As long as Sony and Nintendo insist on keeping their games exclusive to their consoles MS has every right not to ship their first party games on the other two consoles.

@NeoRatt

Exactly. He is talking about exactly that and has actually said it many times right after making that more choice statement. It’s about giving people a bigger choice on where they play their games in the Xbox/PC ecosystem as well as streaming. Just because some competing console platforms miss out on some releases doesn’t make Phil’s statement inaccurate or a lie.

I can unequivocally say that as an Xbox gamer and PC gamer, I now have more choices than I ever have in regards to how I want to play a particular game.

@RIghteousNixon I don't think it's safe to assume anything to be honest. Everyone expected CMA to approve the acquisition back in April but they blocked it instead, everyone also expected Microsoft to close the acquisition by bypassing the CMA in June/July but it didn't happen either.

The whole thing about Microsoft and Activision walking away from the acquisition if it wasn't approved by the July deadline turned out to be a lie.

@Grumblevolcano
While the deadlines have past, MS was clear that years of investigation and appeals were unacceptable. Really at the end of the day the deal is ending up with a 3.5 month delay. That is OK.

If it goes significantly past October I would expect MS to walk away at some point. But, I agree that we should all be dubious as to what people say through the press and what companies say.

I read an article today on the 9 most slimy professions... 1) Lobbyists, 2) Telemarketers, 3) Members of Congress, 4) Car Salespeople, 5) State Office Holders 6) Business Execs, 7) TV Reporters, 8) Advertising Practitioners, 9) Newspaper Reporters.

While I am sure a lot of these people are legit and just bunched with the worst, we should use a critical view when listening to these people.

I hope ES6 is MS exclusive just to see the fallout and tears

@themightyant He's trotted out that line so many times and gone against it that it's one of those things you don't believe any longer. Personally I don't care either way, an Xbox boss is looking out for Xbox after all, but if your whole philosophy is about giving gamers choice, you'd be offering that thing everywhere you possibly could, even dead consoles two generations ago! That's the purest possible form of choice, right? 🙃

give playstation nothing! NOTHING!

Some would say MS is being smart about this. I would say, if MS plans to continue making consoles, it's being too generous. If you put a piece of hardware on the market, the goal should be to sell it, best way to do that is with some exclusives.

@GunValkyria
Twitter (or X or whatever it's called in the future), will be highly entertaining that day.

Part of me likes the idea of MS screwing Sony as hard as Sony screwed MS, but I tend to agree with @themightyant. They'll most likely lock up the single player games.

I do hope they keep most multiplayer games cross platform. Exclusives are bad for gamers.

@Grumblevolcano

They blocked it and in the long run have made themselves look irrational and biased, basically singling themselves out from the entire world on the deal. They were ordered to go back and reassess the deal. The only reason MS is playing nice at this point is because they might find themselves up in front of the CMA again soon enough. MS was never walking away from this deal unless they lost to the FTC in court, and that was never gonna happen. Hands down the single weakest case I have ever seen the FTC bring in front of a judge and they got demolished in court

This deal is way way way too big of a deal for MS to walk away due to just the CMA. And the CMA is never gonna go against the deal again knowing the FTC got demolished and they are basically the last man standing against it. They are fully 100% aware the deck is stacked against them and if they do block it again, MS will show just how irrelevant the CMA is when it comes to stopping a worldwide merger this big.

It’s a done deal. The announcement will come any day now.

People who jump on Phil are usually people who want every Xbox first party game to be on PlayStation with nothing in return.

Phil is giving gamers far more choice on where to play Xbox games compared to Sony. But that doesn't mean they need to give away the farm.