FTC: Xbox-exclusive Starfield is “powerful evidence” against Activision deal : gaming

[–] LoFi-Enchilada@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Spencer went out to say that they lost the most important generation to lose (XBOX One gen, not the current one. Corrected thanks to @Boldizzle ), and that they were going back to the drawing board to turn things around. They just hiked up the prices of Game Pass and the XBOX Series X. They also basically confirmed that there won't be any mid-gen "pro" model and that they expect the next gen to come in 2028. And now their plan to buy the industry is also failing.

So what's next? I doubt they have a queue of heavy hitting first party exclusives in the oven to maintain them until 2028. I'm almost certain that they expected to buy themselves some time by acquiring studios and turning their IPs into system-seller XBOX exclusives.

[–] kosure@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is a really good point. I have a PlayStation, (disclaimer) so I'm relatively content with their success in the buying-studios-to-produce-console-exclusives game. But it's objectively bad for the industry. Gamers don't benefit because they can't play where they want (or can afford), developers don't benefit because they lose creative control and market share (with the trade off of some short term capital influx), and publisher's don't even really benefit because its a game of mutually assured destruction that all ends up on Steam discount list anyway.

Plus: if Sony does manage a definitive win in the console wars that will shut down billions of dollars of investment that Microsoft is currently putting into the industry. And not just on the console side. That's bad for everyone. Microsoft has been leading the way in accessibility and interoperability between platforms (Game Pass on mobile/console/pc). And that's to be applauded.

I read somewhere (forgive me for not having a link) that the games industry recently shrunk for the first time in a long time. I think it largely has to do with tiktok and other more instant gratification choices for free-time. But gaming entering into the hellscape of streaming fragmentation is not drawing outsiders to the hobby.

[–] asteroidrainfall@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You make a good point about the blow to creative freedom. Exclusivity doesn’t seem to correlate with innovation anymore (sans Nintendo). Even if you look at Sony, with its massive lead in quality first-party exclusives, the majority are gritty narrative third-person action games. They are easy to market because they have a compelling story, are mechanically simple to appeal to a wider audience, and are relatively short to lower the commitment.

Consolidation will kill creativity in the long term. Just look at the post-Disney MCU/Star Wars film industry. Games will surely follow, given the way things are headed.

Edit:
Disclaimer - Just my opinion and I play on PlayStation/Nintendo/PC.

[–] CIWS-30@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you're right. Both about games, and tv / movies. Look how it turned out for Ubisoft when they turned every game into Assassin's Creed / The Division. Ghost Recon: Breakpoint ironically being a break point that showed that this strategy leads to player exhaustion, burnout, and failure. Kevin Feige ironically said something like, "Chocolate ice cream is tasty, but if you only give people chocolate ice cream every day, they'll get sick of it and want something else. Which is why we have to keep mixing things up and giving people something new if we don't want them to get tired of it."

...and he didn't even take his own advice. Well, not in the long run anyways. And we see how it's slowly failing as of late.

[–] toxic@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

It also doesn’t help the general quality of the shows are mediocre.

[–] phi1997@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At least we'll still have indie games

[–] Dangdoggo@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah that's what i was going to say, the AAA industry may be stagnating but it has never been easier for creators to make their own games and there is some awesome stuff coming out of that market

[–] Boldizzle@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I could've sworn Spencer was talking about the Xbox One/PS4 generation when he said about losing the most important generation. This current gen battle is still ongoing so while MS certainly isn't winning it so far, they've come out swinging pretty hard with the latest lot of announcements and there's still plenty of time left this gen to be declaring it a loss for Xbox.

[–] LoFi-Enchilada@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're totally right! I just looked at the interview again, and he was referring to the XBOX One / PS4 gen.

[–] Easy_Fox@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

It make sense. They were on par with Sony at the end of the PS3/XBOX360 era (I would say that Xbox360 dominated the first half where PS did on the second half), so they needed an strong start for the XBOX One/PS4 era, and all the drama about "always online", the anti-consumer focus of their PR, and the lack of games and exclusivities really hurt them.

[–] CIWS-30@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I'm not really sure what Xbox is thinking nowadays. Raising the Price of the Xbox AND Game Pass, when the PS5 is still kicking their ass. Buying out expensive game studios only to publish flops like Redfall. Now they're wasting time and money trying to get into a merger with Activision Blizzard, which has a good chance of failing, and they possibly could've spent that time and money doing something less controversial and more productive instead...

...at this point, I have to wonder if the Xbox brand has much of a future in the actual console space.

[–] Stanley_Pain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 1 year ago

But other consoles can have exclusives?

I'd be ok with this if they got rid of the concept of "console exclusives" all together :).

[–] blazera@kbin.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Was not expecting call of dutys status as a multiplatform game to warrant federal government intervention to protect.

Would you like to go after shit like Bayer-Monsanto?

[–] Ashtear@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Would be nice, but antitrust has been feckless in the US for so long that I'll take it where I can get it.

[–] asteroidrainfall@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Crazy idea, but maybe we just shouldn’t allow big ass companies to buy other big ass companies.

[–] 00@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

But forbidding them to buy out competition until they are a monopoly would be against the ethos of competition!

or something...

[–] Ech@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

'Feckless' isn't used enough these days.

[–] Ech@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

On the one hand, Sony is doing the same with plenty of their own games - Spider-man, Horizon, God of War, etc. This is standard in the industry at this point. On the other hand, Sony isn't gobbling up every studio it can get its hands on, let alone one as big as Activision Blizzard.

It's an interesting situation MS has gotten themselves in.

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Not that Sony is worthy of any defending on our parts, but they have a recent track record of releasing their console exclusives to the PC a short while after. Of those two big conglomerates, Sony seems to be the more dedicated of the two to preserving multiplatform releases.

[–] Ech@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I mean, on that front, MS has been releasing pretty much every "exclusive* on PC for some time. Starfield itself is coming to PC. I think it's kinda weird that we label PCs under the "MS Console" umbrella and shame them for it, but Sony gets praised for it.

[–] irinotecan@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I suppose the argument is that MS still makes money on Windows sales, whereas Sony only makes money on the game itself, for PC ports of games.

[–] asteroidrainfall@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Sony isn’t just a gaming company though. They sell all kinds of home electronics and cameras. They also have their entire film and music divisions, not to mention their banking any insurance subsidiaries. Nintendo is the only platform holder that is just a gaming company.

[–] phi1997@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

It's because Microsoft makes the dominant OS

[–] loobkoob@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The PC release is usually around two years after the PlayStation release, I believe, so it's quite a while. Microsoft also releases all their games on PC on day one, and has done for several years at this point, so I'm not sure I'd agree that Sony is more dedicated to preserving multiplatform than Microsoft.

[–] BobKerman3999@feddit.it 2 points 1 year ago

Also the pc ports are quite shit and feel like they are "compliance releases"

[–] 13zero@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Microsoft also owns Windows, so it’s debatable whether a game for PC and Xbox can truly be considered multiplatform.

[–] skulblaka@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Starfield is currently available for pre-order on Steam with a release date of Sep 6. It's coming to PC as well, without requiring an Xbox storefront or Game Pass, which does make it by all definitions multiplatform. I think the specific complaint at hand here is that it's not coming to PS5, which seems kind of odd to me. Like, it's cool if it also comes to Playstation, but we know Starfield isn't coming to the Switch, for example. So why is it such a huge deal that it doesn't come to PS5? Developers can't be expected to support every platform on every game. I was mad as hell when Persona 5 wasn't on switch (they eventually released Royal on switch but this was several years later), why wasn't that a problem with the FTC? Should I be mad that Skyrim wasn't ported to my 3DS?

Personally I'm not really a fan of Call Of Duty so I wouldn't be bothered if it did just fall off the face of the earth, but I understand people are concerned about Microsoft pulling a bait and switch and making the next COD Xbox only in order to drive console sales. So why, then, is this article talking about Starfield? Also if they were going to pull that they wouldn't be bringing it to PC either because that just ruins your whole captive audience plan, and most or all of their recent AAA stuff that I know of have been multiplatform console/PC releases.

I just don't get it, I guess, is my point. Someone please explain to me what is going on here?

[–] nathris@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Morrowind only released on Xbox + PC, Oblivion released on PS3 a year late and was a shitty port, Fallout 3 was a mess.

Bethesda treating PlayStation as an afterthought predates their Microsoft acquisition by nearly two decades.

[–] Tubeless5812@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Coloured by my experience as a PS4/PS5 owner, it's frustrating because no-one ever expected Starfield to run on Switch... But a PS5 is very similar to an Xbox and would run it without an issue.

A lot of people only have room/budget for one "main" device. Sony's reputation for exclusive story rich games made that an easy choice.

The fact that Bethesda games were available on PlayStation and Xbox in the past makes it feels more like something being taken from us rather than something that was never available to begin with. Even though Starfield is a new IP.

I'll power through it on my Steam Deck if it runs because I want to play it, but I'm going to remain bitter for some time.

[–] Ech@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The jist of it would be that, while gaming exclusives have kinda just done their own thing for a while now, MS has invited the scrutiny of government agencies with such a big acquisition. That's why they are getting the brunt of criticism ATM.

It'll be interesting to see if that scrutiny spreads to the other big devs as well during all this.

[–] Entropywins@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I have gamepass for pc with lots of Xbox exclusive games... I have 5 Sony exclusives...

[–] kosure@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They are gobbling up developers. Many are lowly and don't have many credits to their names. Sony may be a hardware company that doesn't fully understand software or services, but if they lost two generations in a row, you can bet your ass they'd drop billions of dollars to acquire Activision, or Take-Two or EA

[–] 50gp@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sony does not have anywhere enough capital to acquire large publishers

[–] kosure@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I hear what you're saying. And I don't have the financials quick at hand. But I guess what I really mean is that they'd be fighting tooth and nail, gouging eyes... Essentially that neither of them are above the dirty tricks campaign and it benefits no one in the long term.

[–] Eggyhead@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’ve been a Sony fan for years, so my perspective is probably biased, but the way I see it, Sony innovates to get an edge while Microsoft just buys everything out.

[–] thereisalamp@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What has Sony done that's been innovative honestly though?

They have good exclusives, and the controller is objectively better. But they're way behind in online integration for beyond game use. The play station competitor to game pass is objectively bad.

Their studios aren't really doing anything with graphics or physics that is not being done comparably or better by others. Tears of the kingdom physics on a fucking switch is miles beyond anything MS or PS can do on their massively better hardware.

Sony lives and dies on brand loyalty and exclusives. And that controller.

[–] syphe@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly, Sony had a great start to the PS4, they gained a lot of goodwill because they started that generation on fairly equal footing with Xbox, and MS made a lot of blunders before the consoles even went on sale. At the time, the PS4 was a better deal, and Sony was much more customer-oriented. I was mainly a 360 user, and had a PS3 but it was rarely turned on, but I went all in on PS4.

I reckon however about mid-way through the last gen Sony had enough market share to care a bit more about profits than their customers. Mainly the issues around cross-play and cross-save, some say their stance on back-compat wasn't great, but I'm not sure I agree because it's likely largely a technical issue.

When the mid-gen refresh started coming around, I seriously considered switching to Xbox, but PSVR helped me stay in the Sony eco-system, but I did end up going all in on Xbox for this current gen, and am happy I have done, sure I miss out on some Sony exclusives, but I certainly appreciate the user-experience more on Xbox, with things like quick-resume and smart-delivery making Xbox feel truly next-gen

[–] thereisalamp@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't realize ps didn't have quick resume, that is just such an integral part of my gaming experience in not sure I could give it up

[–] Ech@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think that really has any bearing on the conversation of exclusives, tbh. A work being "good" or "bad" shouldn't have any influence on if we consider exclusives acceptable.

[–] InisSieferI@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Ya if Sony bought EA, for example, I'd be just as pissed. Or even Take-Two, which it was rumored they were looking at before, I think.

[–] Syo@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago

Regardless, the FTC also argues that this manufactured categorization doesn't matter because Microsoft's exclusivity decision applied to "all future ZeniMax games." While Microsoft said in 2021 that "some" future Bethesda games would be Xbox exclusives, no Bethesda non-exclusives have been announced since then.

In this case, FTC is right and they should be extra careful what Microsoft says, as evident, they will just do the opposite.

[–] tal@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Regardless, the FTC also argues that this manufactured categorization doesn't matter because Microsoft's exclusivity decision applied to "all future ZeniMax games." While Microsoft said in 2021 that "some" future Bethesda games would be Xbox exclusives, no Bethesda non-exclusives have been announced since then.

I'm fairly confident that I read someone saying -- maybe on /r/fallout or /r/fo76 or somewhere -- that Bethesda had stated that existing franchises would not be XBox-only, though new ones could.

That may-or-may-not have been an accurate representation of what was said (I only read their summary) and may-or-may-not have changed since then, but that's what I recall the statement being.

[–] diabolic_seagull@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

I don't trust microsoft with anything. I find this exclusivity-through-acquisition behavior very much in character. It's not surprising at all. Giving them the benefit of the doubt again, on the other hand, would just be dumb.

[–] aphonefriend@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Microsoft: JustCapitalismThings™

[–] Gigg44@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

Microsoft was just fed up with Sony just buying one year console exclusivity. See Tokyo Ghostwire and Deathloop. The thought instead of paying for exclusivity for Starfield like Sony why not buy them. I also bet that Sony has to pay less for a console exclusivity then Microsoft because they have to reimburse not so many loss of sales since Playstation is a bigger market.

Gaming