• pjhenry1216@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s outselling is what caused Microsoft to not deny it. It originally denied it because they had a rule that games needed feature parity with both Series X and S. BG3 split screen couldn’t be done on S. The massive success is what led them to relax the rule. And virtually no one saw this level of success coming from within the gaming industry, including the developers themselves.

    Edit: I just realized this is being upset about Starfield.

    That is totally the fault of gamers. The biggest reason given for buying a PS5 over Xbox was exclusives. What the fuck did you think was going to happen? Sony started the exclusives battle and continually came out ahead. Obviously MS is going to fight. Making exclusives such an important decision in console purchases drove exclusives to be important overall. There’s no sense in being upset that the industrynis literally responded to gamer’s actions and stated motivations.

    • thoro@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What the fuck did you think was going to happen?

      Microsoft would develop their existing first party studios and improve the quality of their first party titles, invest in third parties that they already had exclusive relationships with, or invest in up and coming studios?

      Had Bethesda published a Microsoft exclusive since Morrowind?

      • Jax
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t understand how anyone could use Windows 11 and think Microsoft would, at any point, improve anything.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t expect that from Sony so why expect it elsewhere? Sony started this game, gamers lauded them and rewarded them for doing it. Microsoft tried to not do that, and got beat down further than they had when they tried playing that game against Sony. Gamers wanted exclusives. Microsoft is providing that. You voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party and now are surprised leopards are eating your face.

        This was a forgone conclusion for awhile now. Folks are just upset because Microsoft has an exclusive that Sony gamers want to play. Boo fucking hoo. I’m pissed it came to this, but gamers did this. I’m angry about it, but I don’t feel sorry for gamers as a whole about it.

        • thoro@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sony started this game

          Did they, though? I think exclusives predate Sony and even the PS1. They’ve been a part of the console space since basically the inception of the medium. Xbox itself launched with an exclusive “killer app” in Halo. Timed third party exclusivity and exclusive Map Packs were very popular with the 360 when it was on top in the seventh generation as well.

          I don’t think Sony has ever made an acquisition of the same scope as Zenimax either in price or in how much of the market was fenced off from a studio they previously had access to. That’s not even going into the Activision deal.

          Maybe we can now point to Bungie, but that was still half the price. Most of Sony’s acquisitions over its time were studios that were already de facto developing exclusively for their consoles. Even Insomniac. If you look at their history, Sunset Overdrive is a lone anomaly.

          Exclusives suck, but I don’t see them going away as long as consoles and capitalism exist. You’re basically throwing shade at Sony for daring to fund the development of critically and commercially acclaimed games that gave them the reputation of having a quality first party library. Starfield on the other hand was developed as cross platform title until Microsoft paid 7.5 billion to acquire a major publisher. Wasn’t this confirmed this week by the document leaks?

          Few complain when Halo is released exclusively because no one is being surprised that those games are now exclusive titles. That isn’t the case with the new Bethesda deal.

          • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sony and Microsoft used to pay for exclusives without buying the studios. So there’s no real meat to the argument that “oh, the games were always exclusive because first party” or whatever. The consoles didn’t really buy that many game studios until relatively recently in gaming history. They would pay a studio to not release on other platforms. This whole buying studios thing was just cheaper in the long run. So there’s no real argument to be made about Sony just making better first party games. That’s what they do now given that they own the studios. Both companies are guilty of buying out studios.

            Exclusives pre-dating the PS1 was more out of lack of technology. No cross platform tech really existed. There wasn’t a lot of crossover. Many platforms didn’t last more than a generation or two. There wasn’t even much cross over in the kind of games. If you liked fighting games, you bought a Sega over Nintendo for example. With the PlayStation, they competed against Sega first, Nintendo as more an afterthought. Xbox came in later to compete against PlayStation 2. The Nintendo 64 was just a different class, and even later, the GameCube. With Xbox and PlayStation, they had similar amounts of power and restraints (an N64 cartridge could not compete from a technical perspective against the storage of discs, plus multi-disc games could exist, not really feasible with cartridges) plus abstraction technology was more advanced and one could more easily write cross platform code. Now, you either had to pay for an exclusive or simply hope they only had the intent to target one platform (whether through preference or resource limitations). So the console wars really started to heat up after the death of Dreamcast and mainly between Sony and MS. Exclusivity wasn’t via first party existed, but not to s great extent beyond their flagship games.

            So, tldr, exclusivity has always been acquired via money and buying them. It’s easy to say it’s about developing better first party once those studios were bought outright to begin with. That’s how most first party titles exist now.

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, but Oblivion came to PS3 later and Skyrim was outright broken on PS3, then Sony scuppered their console mod plans by not allowing deep enough system access. Safe to say they probably didn’t have the best relationship.

      • Eochaid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol, Starfield was originally going to be a Sony exclusive. That means Sony was literally going to pay Beth money to deny Xbox gamers access.

        MS just made the better offer.

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Gaming isn’t bedroom coders knocking out games in basic for microcomputers any more, it’s a huge entertainment industry and that’s how those industries work.

        This is no different from Disney pulling Fox properties of other steaming platforms to put them on Disney+ since they brought them out.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes they do. They used to buy exclusive rights back during PS2 days but eventually both MS and Sony realized it’s cheaper to just buy the studios. Sony has only a small number fewer acquisitions than Microsoft. Both companies have always bought exclusivity.

    • Corkyskog
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      My reason for buying a PS5 is my Xbone bit the dust, and my Xbox 360 also had issues when I traded it in. My ps2 and ps1 still work. There was also the fact that the only available options were PS5 or Series S. I didn’t buy the console for exclusives, I bought it because it was the better available console and my previous one was dead.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok? But your experience doesn’t change what the number one reason given is though? Sure, I don’t get Pixel phone anymore either because two in a row failed on me, but I don’t go around telling everyone “no one buys pixel phones because they die easily”

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        But you made that decision knowing that Bethesda games were going to be exclusive to the MS ecosystem.

        • Corkyskog
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No I didn’t. The announcement of their intentions to fully absorb Bethesda didn’t even come out until around the PS5’s release, and wasn’t completed until like 6 months after. Not everyone pays close attention to gaming news. And if you bought the console early on, there is a chance you never would have even heard about it, let alone completely understood the implications of the purchase.