General Gaming Microsoft: Sony paid to keep FF7R, FFXVI, Silent Hill Remake forever off Xbox consoles

[crispy4000]

Microsoft confirms that Sony has blocked these 4 games from hitting Xbox forever | Windows Central

WWW.WINDOWSCENTRAL.COM

---

Bloodborne, Final Fantasy VII Remake, and more are apparently being held hostage by Sony.

They also claim Bloodborne, but given no PC release and Sony publishing / owning the IP there’s likely more at play.

[Spork3245]

This can only help their Activision buyout case

[crispy4000]

Got mixed feelings here.  This sort of thing has long been part of the industry, under the radar or not.  Nintendo paying to keep Monster Hunter off Vita is a notable example - it likely led to the platform's early death, if not also Sony's hard exit from the handheld space.  These kind of deals suck for everyone, especially if the bill for development isn't fronted as part of the deal.

On the other hand, it's still small beans compared to buying the exclusive rights to a well-established studio's IP forever.  This is essentially what acquisitions are.  Microsoft's put on a metric ton of pressure in the past 4 years, they're hardly one to talk about keeping games from their competition.

 

All the more reason why I'm partial to PC gaming nowadays.  It's one thing if I need to buy a console to play a game.  It's another if I can't play it because I pick the wrong side instead of the neutral side.

[XxEvil AshxX]

The one thing that bugs me is the hypocrisy on Sony's part. It's one thing to do this stuff, but to do it while constantly complaining about it is just annoying. At some point Sony just needs to nut up and admit they play just as dirty. They all play dirty.

 

That's the game.

[crispy4000]

40 minutes ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

The one thing that bugs me is the hypocrisy on Sony's part. It's one thing to do this stuff, but to do it while constantly complaining about it is just annoying. At some point Sony just needs to nut up and admit they play just as dirty. They all play dirty.

 

That's the game.

They’re playing the old dirty game.  The new dirty game is buying mega-publishers, a clear escalation on Microsoft’s part.  Without the same access to capital, of course they’re going to complain. 

[EternallDarkness]

23 minutes ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

The one thing that bugs me is the hypocrisy on Sony's part. It's one thing to do this stuff, but to do it while constantly complaining about it is just annoying. At some point Sony just needs to nut up and admit they play just as dirty. They all play dirty.

 

That's the game.

 

can't argue with that...of course haven't we seen 'exclusives' make their way to other console in altered forms before. So how about xbox gets FF 7 Remake Omega Fruitloop edition? 

[Keyser_Soze]

1 minute ago, EternallDarkness said:

can't argue with that...of course haven't we seen 'exclusives' make their way to other console in altered forms before. So how about xbox gets FF 7 Remake Omega Fruitloop edition? 

 

If the publisher changes then it can come somewhere else, that's how Death Stranding ended up on game pass for PC but is still a console exclusive.

 

MLB the show is another big one.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

On 12/23/2022 at 9:18 AM, XxEvil AshxX said:

The one thing that bugs me is the hypocrisy on Sony's part. It's one thing to do this stuff, but to do it while constantly complaining about it is just annoying. At some point Sony just needs to nut up and admit they play just as dirty. They all play dirty.

 

That's the game.

this is definitely a major thing that irks me about Sony’s statements and attitude. And too few people telling them to sit down and STFU over their hypocrisy. 
 

id have much more respect for Sony if they’d just say that the 30% licensing fee they get from every copy of COD is a significant quarterly revenue stream, and they don’t even want to take the hit by putting COD on PS+. Don’t try to hide behind their players who they have no problems ripping off and screwing. 

 

On 12/23/2022 at 9:27 AM, crispy4000 said:

They’re playing the old dirty game.  The new dirty game is buying mega-publishers, a clear escalation on Microsoft’s part.  Without the same access to capital, of course they’re going to complain. 

Sony had probably hopped that the Xbox division would be left to be relatively self sufficient, which would make it easier to stay on top. GamePass has worried Sony for a while, and when Zenimax happened they got more afraid, and now with Activision/Blizzard looming they’re terrified. Sony is losing the ability to control the industry and market themselves. 
 

if they could they’d buy exclusivity for every game and be the only console manufacturer. They just don’t have the capital. Even with the major acquisitions, I don’t think this is Xbox’s end goal. I suspect just like with Windows and MS Office, they just want to be everywhere. Which is why they don’t try to discourage PC gaming by keeping titles exclusive to Xbox Console any more. And at its most devious these big acquisitions is to build enough leverage that Sony and Nintendo just allow GamePass on their consoles. 

[Keyser_Soze]

Basically Sony is doing everything everyone hated Microsoft for last gen.

 

Digital only console? No we can share disks! - Now, Sony with digital only console.

Timed Exclusives? Microsoft had a few, but has since let them go. Now Sony not only doing timed but kept exclusives.

Raising the prices of games by $10 bucks but then pointing the finger at Microsoft that they are going to be responsible for games going up in price.

Can't have a day one game pass equivalent because "we want your money" but not really saying it out loud.

[crispy4000]

40 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

If [Sony] could they’d buy exclusivity for every game and be the only console manufacturer. They just don’t have the capital. Even with the major acquisitions, I don’t think this is Xbox’s end goal.  suspect just like with Windows and MS Office, they just want to be everywhere. Which is why they don’t try to discourage PC gaming by keeping titles exclusive to Xbox Console any more. And at its most devious these big acquisitions is to build enough leverage that Sony and Nintendo just allow GamePass on their consoles. 

 

With Games Pass on other consoles being off the table (as it always was) and new subscriptions slowing, I think Microsoft's priorities will shift back to growing their console install base at the expense of their competition.  They're already everywhere they can be with GP.  Sony and Nintendo aren't going to throw in the towel.

 

That means more Microsoft exclusives: subscription exclusives and not-on-Sony/Nintendo exclusives.  Some properties are such established cash cows it makes sense to keep them fully multiplatform (ie: CoD, Minecraft, Overwatch).  But I'd bet the majority of games from acquired studios will stay on platforms that allow for Games Pass.  This is Microsoft's end game: buy up big, notable studios, turn people's heads from the platforms not friendly to their interests, own the living room.

 

I don't think any console manufacturer expects to ever be the only one in buisness.  But they all want to be on top.  And decidedly so.  Games Pass gets bigger when Xbox gets bigger.

I also expect a much greater push for international markets within the next decade, after the dust settles with Activison.

[johnny]

uhhhh no shit? how is this news? 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

2 minutes ago, johnny said:

uhhhh no shit? how is this news? 

its saying the quiet part out loud. It’s inside baseball. We know it’s happening, but people on the inside don’t say it. Also, this probably includes excluding PC GamePass. 
 

…also it was at least rumored that FFVII R was only a 12 month timed exclusive. 

[Keyser_Soze]

5 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

…also it was at least rumored that FFVII R was only a 12 month timed exclusive. 

 

When it came to PC, and no news even leading up to the announcement of Rebirth with no news, it was pretty much the dagger. It was strange they didn't try to do it for Crisis Core since that was a PSP game. 🤷‍♀️

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

3 minutes ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

When it came to PC, and no news even leading up to the announcement of Rebirth with no news, it was pretty much the dagger. It was strange they didn't try to do it for Crisis Core since that was a PSP game. 🤷‍♀️

yeah, it just sucks to see it finally official. I had almost wondered if the time exclusive was for when all chapters of FFVII R had been released. lol 

 

I think the difference is Sony knew more people would be interested in FFVII, and Crisis Core even ends with a “play Final Fantasy VIi Rebirth to complete the story”, which is kind of an added twisting of the knife. Though it is probably more the former. FFVII was just a higher profile game. 

[Paperclyp]

8 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Basically Sony is doing everything everyone hated Microsoft for last gen.

 

Digital only console? No we can share disks! - Now, Sony with digital only console.

Timed Exclusives? Microsoft had a few, but has since let them go. Now Sony not only doing timed but kept exclusives.

Raising the prices of games by $10 bucks but then pointing the finger at Microsoft that they are going to be responsible for games going up in price.

Can't have a day one game pass equivalent because "we want your money" but not really saying it out loud.

As soon as Sony won the hearts and minds battle they immediately turned back to their “you’ll eat the cat poop and pretend you like it,” persona. 

[Xbob42]

On 12/23/2022 at 6:20 AM, crispy4000 said:

On the other hand, it's still small beans compared to buying the exclusive rights to a well-established studio's IP forever.  This is essentially what acquisitions are.

What the fuck is the functional difference? Microsoft could easily afford to choke Sony out of the market by just buying these same games or series as perma-exclusives as Sony has. The double standard about it being "just one game" is insane to me. Would it be okay if instead Microsoft just paid Activision to keep CoD off of Sony platforms forever each time one came out?

[crispy4000]

51 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

What the fuck is the functional difference? Microsoft could easily afford to choke Sony out of the market by just buying these same games or series as perma-exclusives as Sony has. The double standard about it being "just one game" is insane to me. Would it be okay if instead Microsoft just paid Activision to keep CoD off of Sony platforms forever each time one came out?

It’s paid once, and it’s done.  No chance of the other side cutting a deal from under their nose in the future.  They own the talent, if not also the IP with it.

 

Sony absolutely got burned as such with Deathloop and Ghostwire.  They would have put that money elsewhere if they saw it coming.  You could also point to Crash.

[Xbob42]

22 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

It’s paid once, and it’s done.  No chance of the other side cutting a deal from under their nose in the future.  They own the talent, if not also the IP with it.

That is some seriously spurious hair splitting over what I see as almost exactly the same thing. MS could literally buy every exclusive out from under Sony's nose with zero chance of them being able to compete because they're in completely different universes of cash. Whatever Sony paid for their little perma-exclusives, MS could pay for 50 more, especially if they didn't have $77 billion going towards a single company. is that "better," is it more "competition?" Because all of this is being done under the hilariously unconvincing veil of being consumer protection by proxy of antitrust shit, which ostensibly serves the purpose of consumer protection, I guess.

 

But the rules seem ill-defined, the targets chosen based on what appears popular, and every standard appears doubled, or to have a special exception that makes no sense outside of definition arguments. "It's totally okay to create a de facto monopoly THIS way because you're not merging with the company, even if you could theoretically be paid for permanent exclusivity on every product you ever make." Yeah that sounds way better.

[crispy4000]

17 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

That is some seriously spurious hair splitting over what I see as almost exactly the same thing. MS could literally buy every exclusive out from under Sony's nose with zero chance of them being able to compete because they're in completely different universes of cash. Whatever Sony paid for their little perma-exclusives, MS could pay for 50 more, especially if they didn't have $77 billion going towards a single company. is that "better," is it more "competition?" Because all of this is being done under the hilariously unconvincing veil of being consumer protection by proxy of antitrust shit, which ostensibly serves the purpose of consumer protection, I guess.

 

But the rules seem ill-defined, the targets chosen based on what appears popular, and every standard appears doubled, or to have a special exception that makes no sense outside of definition arguments. "It's totally okay to create a de facto monopoly THIS way because you're not merging with the company, even if you could theoretically be paid for permanent exclusivity on every product you ever make." Yeah that sounds way better.

I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about buying out a publisher being a bigger deal than repeatedly contracting them for exclusives.  If Microsoft was after Square-Enix this whole time instead of Activision, all of this FF stuff from today would matter for almost nothing.  Because Microsoft could twist the entire franchise against their competitors, permanently if they so chose.  That, and all of Square’s other IP.

 

I don’t say this to handwave away what Sony is doing as something not so bad.  It may very well be all they can afford to compete in this environment.  They’ll probably lose out to Microsoft long term if so - who is literally in the process of buying the largest 3rd party publisher.

[Xbob42]

Games are released infrequently enough that a company as big as MS buying permanent exclusivity every time you release a game every 4 years is identical to owning them in terms of competition and as far as consumers are concerned.

[crispy4000]

14 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

Games are released infrequently enough that a company as big as MS buying permanent exclusivity every time you release a game every 4 years is identical to owning them in terms of competition and as far as consumers are concerned.

That doesn’t reflect the reality of the situation here. Microsoft’s moved on from buying single developers (albeit quite a few at a time in 2018) to Bethesda and Activision Blizzard.  They’re picking up huge swaths of development resources and IP all at once.  That’s of far more consequence than Sony moneyhatting a select few Square/Konami games from coming to Xbox.  Unlike their past deal with Bloodborne, they don’t even own these franchises after the dust settles.

 

If this is Sony’s response, they’re simply not keeping pace.  It’s scummy, sure, but grasping at straws by comparison.  Sony would need their own mega-publisher M&A to play the same game of hardball.

 

No one should want any of this for the industry.  We’ve had two gens of softball exclusivity deals and multiplatfrom normalization.  The pendulum is starting to swing back, spearheaded by acquisitions.