Xbox Game Pass (Console & PC)

[Hero-of-Time]

3 minutes ago, Julius said:

This is much better than what they apparently did with Monster Hunter World (if I'm remembering right, supposedly blocking cross-platform multiplayer, delaying the PC version of the game, and having similar agreements in place for Iceborne) and to a lesser extent I suppose even Monster Hunter Rise. And goodness knows what's going on with Final Fantasy VII Remake, but it doesn't look like that's making it to Game Pass for a good while more either. 

The MH stuff was all debunked a day later. A mistake was made when reading through the Capcom documents, fanboys grabbed their pitchforks and then it turned out it was nothing. Kinda what looks like is happening again with this story. As Map said, at the moment it seems to be the in thing on the internet is to try and find some dirt on Sony. 

[Dcubed]

15 minutes ago, Map said:

Already been debunked, just a standard agreement. Just another day of people wanting to be outraged at Sony for something.

 

That’s talking about the technical parity stuff; which I’m not interested in.  It’s the 1 year Gamepass block that is of note here; which, as far as I’m aware, is indeed part of those leaked documents.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

16 minutes ago, Map said:

Already been debunked, just a standard agreement. Just another day of people wanting to be outraged at Sony for something.

 

Thanks for clarifying that. No surprise to see who was quick to jump on the rumours.

[Hero-of-Time]

5 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

That’s talking about the technical parity stuff; which I’m not interested in.  It’s the 1 year Gamepass block that is of note here; which, as far as I’m aware, is indeed part of those leaked documents.

If it is true, then would you class it as issue? Surely it’s Sony’s best interest to combat GP any way they can. The game will still be getting released on both platforms so it’s not as if it’s been bought as an exclusive, timed or otherwise.

[Map]

13 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

That’s talking about the technical parity stuff; which I’m not interested in.  It’s the 1 year Gamepass block that is of note here; which, as far as I’m aware, is indeed part of those leaked documents.

Sony have the marketing for the game which brings these benefits, I’m sure Microsoft and Nintendo look for similar if they are marketing a game. Be weird for for Sony to market and advertise the game for the past year only for it to turn up on Gamepass day one.

[Julius]

14 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

The MH stuff was all debunked a day later. A mistake was made when reading through the Capcom documents, fanboys grabbed their pitchforks and then it turned out it was nothing. Kinda what looks like is happening again with this story. As Map said, at the moment it seems to be the in thing on the internet is to try and find some dirt on Sony. 

I must have missed that, that's my bad! I'll update my post just to mention that's inaccurate  appreciate the update @Map! 

In which case, yeah, it's the fun side of the internet carrying out business as usual. I swear, you'd think PlayStation flopped last gen and are in freefall with the PS5 right now.

The funny thing is I absolutely think there are things PlayStation are doing wrong or could do better, and I do think a lot of that has come to light since the launch of the PS5 (the treatment of Japan Studio and many leaving en masse before that, the whole Days Gone and TLOU debacle Schreier mentioned in his recent article) - in short, I think they're in need of a win, because Xbox have done a great job of dominating the news lately - but it rarely, if ever, feels like a levelheaded discussion about the merits of PlayStation and more piling on. 

Anyways, talking about Game Pass doing so well, apparently they've crossed the 23 million subscriber mark, which is pretty insane. 

And that's without having anything new from their own AAA catalogue of IP's on there recently, if my memory serves me right anyways. Can't imagine the bump we'll see towards the end of the year with Halo if everything goes smoothly for them! 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Julius

[Dcubed]

19 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

If it is true, then would you class it as issue? Surely it’s Sony’s best interest to combat GP any way they can. The game will still be getting released on both platforms so it’s not as if it’s been bought as an exclusive, timed or otherwise.

It’s no more an “issue” than any other paid timed exclusivity, but it is a pretty dirty tactic.  Fight the competition not by competing, but by trying to strangle its supply of content.

Also calls into question what other backroom deals that Sony might’ve made (this is the first time we’ve seen public evidence that Sony are paying publishers to block their Gamepass releases; but it’s almost certainly not the only example... who knows what other kinds of deals they’ve got going...).  They’re seemingly not willing to compete on even terms with their own Playstation Now service, but instead will fight with (effectively) timed exclusivity deals.

[Hero-of-Time]

1 minute ago, Dcubed said:

It’s no more an “issue” than any other paid timed exclusivity, but it is a pretty dirty tactic.  Fight the competition not by competing, but by trying to strangle its supply of content.

So kinda like MS buying up Bethesda and other developers? I’d argue that’s a far more aggressive and underhanded tactic. 

[Dcubed]

13 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

So kinda like MS buying up Bethesda and other developers? I’d argue that’s a far more aggressive and underhanded tactic. 

Not that Microsoft or Nintendo are particularily squeaky clean in regards to timed exclusivity, but there is a big difference between buying a developer to bolster your own first party content output, and paying a publisher to not put out their games on your competitor's competing service.  The former is additive (as it is done to improve your own consumer offering), while the latter is purely deletive.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Dcubed

[Hero-of-Time]

Just now, Dcubed said:

Not that Microsoft or Nintendo are particularily squeaky clean in regards to timed exclusivity, but there is a big difference between buying a developer to bolster your own first party content output, and paying a publisher to not put out their games on your competitor's competing service.

Yeah, the difference being that players on other consoles can still play the games with such a deal, whereas flat out buying a developer usually means that games are kept off rival platforms and are locked in on that ecosystem.

It seems like it’s rules for one and rules for another at the moment. I mean the Capcom leaked showed that Nintendo paid to keep MH Rise off the PC for a year and not many people batted an eyelid and yet the apparent Sony deal with MH World was leaked and everyone was out for blood, even though it turned out to be false. These types of stories show me more and more that a lot gamers are still in this fanboy/tribe mentality, having their own agenda and looking whichever camp they aren’t in to trip up and fall somehow. You even see it on here and I would have thought people would have outgrown it by now. 

[Dcubed]

12 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

Yeah, the difference being that players on other consoles can still play the games with such a deal, whereas flat out buying a developer usually means that games are kept off rival platforms and are locked in on that ecosystem.

It seems like it’s rules for one and rules for another at the moment. I mean the Capcom leaked showed that Nintendo paid to keep MH Rise off the PC for a year and not many people batted an eyelid and yet the apparent Sony deal with MH World was leaked and everyone was out for blood, even though it turned out to be false. These types of stories show me more and more that a lot gamers are still in this fanboy/tribe mentality, having their own agenda and looking whichever camp they aren’t in to trip up and fall somehow. You even see it on here and I would have thought people would have outgrown it by now. 

Oh, yeah for sure.  Nintendo shouldn't get a free pass for holding back MHR's PC version.  And there absolutely is a tribal element in play, where people conviniently ignore transgressions from their own football team console manufacturer of choice.

That being said, I can't help but feel that blocking a release from Gamepass in particular (not even the Xbox console platform itself!) is a new level of low though.  Especially after Sony's own MLB game got put onto Gamepass, this feels like a really petty move on Sony's part.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Dcubed

[Goafer]

55 minutes ago, Hero-of-Time said:

So kinda like MS buying up Bethesda and other developers? I’d argue that’s a far more aggressive and underhanded tactic. 

Yes, but only if Sony did it. As it's Microsoft, it's fine.

Remember when games were fun and not just some pissing match between "my brand" and "your brand"?

[Sheikah]

Not that Microsoft or Nintendo are particularily squeaky clean in regards to timed exclusivity, but there is a big difference between buying a developer to bolster your own first party content output, and paying a publisher to not put out their games on your competitor's competing service.  The former is additive (as it is done to improve your own consumer offering), while the latter is purely deletive.

Buying a developer completely stops people on one console playing their games, whereas stopping it going to game pass means Xbox players can still play the game, just not on Game Pass. The former is therefore a lot worse for gamers.

[Cube]

45 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Not that Microsoft or Nintendo are particularily squeaky clean in regards to timed exclusivity, but there is a big difference between buying a developer to bolster your own first party content output, and paying a publisher to not put out their games on your competitor's competing service.  

Yeah, the main difference is buying a company that releases entirely third party games is massively worse than having exclusively for a single game.

 

If there's a long history of the developer making games for the publisher, it makes more sense, but the Microsoft/Bethesda move does nothing but block games releasing on other systems.

[Dcubed]

12 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

Buying a developer completely stops people on one console playing their games, whereas stopping it going to game pass means Xbox players can still play the game, just not on Game Pass. The former is therefore a lot worse for gamers.

Microsoft buying a developer like Ninja Theory also allows them to make bigger and more expansive games than would've been possible before; giving them the financial security that they would not have otherwise have had.  It also allows them to focus on one platform and take advantage of all of its exclusive features; so no, it's not the same.

They're not buying them to take existing games away from other platforms (hell they've been specifically honouring existing/planned releases on other platforms!), they're buying them to make new, exclusive games for themselves that these developers would never have been otherwise able to make.

You might not like it, but it is not an equivilence.  Like I said, one is additive while the other is purely deletive.

10 minutes ago, Cube said:

Yeah, the main difference is buying a company that releases entirely third party games is massively worse than having exclusively for a single game.

 

If there's a long history of the developer making games for the publisher, it makes more sense, but the Microsoft/Bethesda move does nothing but block games releasing on other systems.

See, now that's an example of what @Hero-of-Time was talking about earlier; the idea that it's ok for some, but not others.  Microsoft gets raked over the coals for buying Ninja Theory or Double Fine, but Nintendo & Sony get a free pass for Next Level Games & Insomniac.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

Sorry [mention=883]Dcubed[/mention], but that's a load of spin and not true at all. Also we were talking about Bethesda. When it comes to Bethesda they bought them so Xbox has the next Elder Scrolls, Fallout, etc, while their competition doesn't.

 

They could have easily not bought Bethesda and those games would have come to Xbox anyway, as multiplatform games. Buying Bethesda was clearly a hostile move to bring people over to their platform.

 

All those reasons you have sound exactly like the nonsense that was peddled when the second Tomb Raider game on Xbox One was announced as an exclusive ("allow them to focus on the platform, etc"). Initially it wasn't clear it was just a timed exclusive, then they brought it to PS4 anyway after a year!

[Glen-i]

19 minutes ago, Goafer said:

Remember when games were fun and not just some pissing match between "my brand" and "your brand"?

As someone who was born right when the Sega/Nintendo conflict began in 1990...

No, I really don't.

[Dcubed]

10 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

All those reasons you have sound exactly like the nonsense that was peddled when the second Tomb Raider game on Xbox One was announced as an exclusive ("allow them to focus on the platform, etc"). Initially it wasn't clear it was just a timed exclusive, then they brought it to PS4 anyway after a year!

Err... we always knew it was a timed exclusive.  That wasn't some sort of amazing revelation or anything (and yes, it was a bullshit move on Microsoft's part that ended up blowing up in their face).

Like I said before, Microsoft & Nintendo have also had their fair share of dirty timed exclusivity deals; but that's not the same thing as buying a developer (or yes, even a publisher).  It's a false equivilence, even if you don't like it.

But yeah, come on! Blocking a game from Gamepass in particular is a new low.  It would be like blocking Sony from putting a game out on PS+ or Playstation Now, or doing a console bundle.  It's just really really petty.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Dcubed

[Cube]

18 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

 

See, now that's an example of what @Hero-of-Time was talking about earlier; the idea that it's ok for some, but not others.  Microsoft gets raked over the coals for buying Ninja Theory or Double Fine, but Nintendo & Sony get a free pass for Next Level Games & Insomniac.

Context matters. Nobody would have an issue with Microsoft buying Moon Studios, Splash Damage or Asobo Studio due to having a close working relationship with them. 

Microsoft buying Bethesda takes things away from consumers.

[Dcubed]

12 minutes ago, Cube said:

Context matters. Nobody would have an issue with Microsoft buying Moon Studios, Splash Damage or Asobo Studio due to having a close working relationship with them. 

Well then the same could be said of Bethesda.  Bethesda largely got their start on PC and only really came to consoles with the advent of the original Xbox (staying mostly exclusive to Microsoft with their big internal titles until 2007-2008).  It's in large part thanks to Microsoft that they became a big renowned console game publisher in the first place.

People conviniently forget about that part of Bethesda's history when it doesn't suit their narrative though.

Same thing is also true of Ninja Theory BTW; they got their start on Xbox with Kung Fu Chaos before they made Heavenly Sword on PS3.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

Context matters. Nobody would have an issue with Microsoft buying Moon Studios, Splash Damage or Asobo Studio due to having a close working relationship with them. 
Microsoft buying Bethesda takes things away from consumers.

Exactly. This is also why Xbox timed exclusivity of Tomb Raider stung particularly, given the close association of Tomb Raider with PlayStation.

Buying Bethesda was purely to stop gamers from playing their games on another platform. Bethesda were a multiplatform developer, their games would have released on Xbox anyway!

[Sheikah]

Well then the same could be said of Bethesda.  Bethesda largely got their start on PC and only really came to consoles with the advent of the original Xbox (staying mostly exclusive to Microsoft with their big internal titles until 2007-2008).  It's in large part thanks to Microsoft that they became a big renowned console game publisher in the first place.
People conviniently forget about that part of Bethesda's history when it doesn't suit their narrative though.
Same thing is also true of Ninja Theory BTW; they got their start on Xbox with Kung Fu Chaos before they made Heavenly Sword on PS3.

Come on, Bethesda have been for a good while a massive multiplatfotm developer with some of the biggest multiplatform games out there, literally some of the absolute biggest games like Skyrim and Fallout. People on Sony consoles have enjoyed their games for a good few generations now, almost as long as Xbox consoles have had them.

You're comparing this to the takeover of Insomniac, c'maan. Look at Insomniac's games, they were practically PlayStation developers most of their history. You can't compare this to Bethesda, the situation is so very different!

[Cube]

22 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Well then the same could be said of Bethesda.  Bethesda largely got their start on PC and only really came to consoles with the advent of the original Xbox

They started out on Amiga, NES and DOS, worked with Windows mainly for a bit then started back with consoles publishing a few PlayStation games and developed a Windows/Xbox only game a single time (with their second internally developed Xbox game also out on PS2 in 2004).

[Dcubed]

21 minutes ago, Sheikah said:

You're comparing this to the takeover of Insomniac, c'maan. Look at Insomniac's games, they were practically PlayStation developers most of their history. You can't compare this to Bethesda, the situation is so very different!

 

Insomniac were also Sony exclusive... until they weren't.  Just like how Bethesda were exclusive to Microsoft until they weren't.

Insomniac have been a multiplatform developer since 2013; until they were swallowed up by Sony (and yes, they made exclusive games for both Sony AND Microsoft after that point).  Bethesda have been multiplatform with their own internal titles (not external licensed games) since 2008; that's only 5 years difference (and Bethesda is also 10 years older than Insomniac BTW; so they had an even longer period of MSDOS/Windows exclusivity than Insomniac did Playstation).

They are a lot more similar than you think.

17 minutes ago, Cube said:

They started out on Atari, NES and DOS, worked with Windows mainly for a bit then started back with consoles publishing a few PlayStation games and developed a Windows/Xbox only game a single time (with their second internally developed Xbox game also out on PS2 in 2004).

Their console output was absolutely negligable (a whopping two NES games and two externally developed PS1 end-of-life budget titles that they published on the cheap) prior to Morrowind.  Bethesda were (and still are) a PC publisher first and foremost.  Their heretige is on the PC (and other early micro computers), before largely pivoting towards Xbox.

The same is true of Zenimax's other studios too.  All PC/Windows focused before turning largely towards the original Xbox.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Dcubed

[Sheikah]

23 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

Insomniac were also Sony exclusive... until they weren't.  Just like how Bethesda were exclusive to Microsoft until they weren't.

Insomniac have been a multiplatform developer since 2013; until they were swallowed up by Sony (and yes, they made exclusive games for both Sony AND Microsoft).  Bethesda have been multiplatform since 2008; that's only 5 years difference (and Bethesda is a LOT older than Insomniac BTW).

 

Their console output was absolutely negligable (a whopping two NES games and two externally developed PS1 end-of-life budget titles that they published on the cheap) prior to Morrowind.  Bethesda were (and still are) a PC publisher first and foremost.  Their heretige is on the PC (and other early micro computers), before largely pivoting towards Xbox.

The same is true of Zenimax's other studios too.  All PC/Windows focused before turning largely towards the original Xbox.

Honestly, I would not say this is a convincing comparison.

Bethesda have some "exclusive" history *years* back with Microsoft (when, let's be honest, PC had no competition and consoles couldn't really run Elder Scrolls games). For many years now they have been putting their biggest games onto as many platforms as they can. Skyrim is on almost everything!

Meanwhile Insomniac have been making almost all PlayStation games for their entire existence. They made Sunset Overdrive for Xbox, but that's the only exclusive they made for Xbox.

There is really no credible comparison to be made here, I don't think. For many years now Bethesda have released game after game across all platforms. A relationship a long time ago doesn't make them an exclusive developer "in all but name" *now*.

Edited April 21, 2021 by Sheikah