Microsoft Denies Strategic Removal of PlayStation 5 Games From Development

[T0@st]

Microsoft has been quick to respond to a backlash from gamers who have been angered by reports of the company's prevention of a PlayStation 5 version of Redfall being developed by an internal studio - Arkane. The game's creative director, Harvey Smith, has been busy with press duties this week and might have slipped up by revealing too much about the Xbox Division's directives. In an interview with IGN France, Harvey stated that Microsoft held a policy of "no PlayStation 5" in the times following an acquisition of ZeniMax (parent group of Bethesda Softworks) in 2021. He elaborated on the regime change: "They came in and they said 'we're focusing on Xbox, PC and the Game Pass." Smith indicated that he embraced the decision since it was: "one less platform to worry about, one less complexity."

A Microsoft spokesperson provided a statement to Eurogamer: "We haven't pulled any games from PlayStation. In fact, we've expanded our footprint of games that we've shipped on Sony's PlayStation since our acquisition of ZeniMax, and the first two games we shipped after closing were PlayStation 5 exclusives. We did the same thing since our closing of Minecraft as we extended the reach of that franchise. All of the games that were available on PlayStation when we acquired ZeniMax in March 2021 are still available on PlayStation, and we have continued to do content updates on PlayStation and PC. We have always said that future decisions on whether to distribute ZeniMax games for other consoles will be made on a case-by-case basis."



It is not clear whether Arkane Studios, Texas had originally intended Redfall to be a multiple platform title at the start of its development cycle. The game was officially announced at the E3 gaming conference in June 2021, which took place three months after Arkane becoming part of Microsoft via the Bethesda Softworks buyout. The Dishonored series and Prey (2017) were all multi-platform releases developed by Arkane prior to the 2021 deal, so it can be speculated that Redfall started life that way, given the studio's track record.

Arkane Lyon, France developed the PlayStation 5 console timed exclusive of Deathloop, and Microsoft has made sure to allude to it in yesterday's statement. The game was released in September 2021 on PS5 and PC, and Xbox Series X and S owners had to wait an extra year for a converted version of Deathloop. Ghostwire: Tokyo was developed by Japanese studio Tango Gameworks, another Bethesda Softworks outfit, and their game was released in early 2022 as a timed exclusive on PlayStation 5 and PC. A version of Ghostwire: Tokyo for Xbox Series X and S consoles is due to launch next month.



Microsoft is keen to portray a squeaky clean image at the current time - several international regulatory bodies are reviewing the company's proposed buyout of the massive Activision Blizzard group. Sony is contending that the deal could result in an unfair skew of competition in the console gaming market. The Call of Duty series is a much discussed franchise within the context of the buyout, and its potential future under Microsoft ownership is murky - despite a 10-year long promise to continue with a multi-platform release schedule for current and next generation CoD titles. Sony is concerned about its PlayStation console platform's sales prospects after that proposed ten year period, in a world where Call of Duty becomes an Xbox exclusive. Its worries have perhaps moved back to the present day, especially in light of an alleged cancellation of a PlayStation 5 version of Redfall.

Redfall arrives exclusively on Xbox Series X|S and PC on May 2, 2023. Pre-order now or play with Game Pass for exclusive content - visit Redfall.com to check it out.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Bomby569]

like sony fans have any moral on this, still it sucks to be left out, we know as non sony customers. I'm still against the mergers and exclusives

 

[sLowEnd]

like sony fans have any moral on this, still it sucks to be left out, we know as non sony customers. I'm still against the mergers and exclusives

Like it or not, popular exclusives are major console sellers. Just ask Nintendo.

I'm sure Nintendo's consoles would've been a lot less popular without the Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Smash Bros, Kirby, and Mario games.

 

[Space Lynx]

yeah, no sympathy for Sony here. Sony needs to go back to its roots and make more first part console only exclusives. I appreciate them coming to PC though, but yeah if you want your ecosystem to be secure, AAA exclusives and indie exclusives are the way to do it, Nintendo is rich as fuck for a reason

 

[Bomby569]

Like it or not, popular exclusives are major console sellers. Just ask Nintendo.

I'm sure Nintendo's consoles would've been a lot less popular without the Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Smash Bros, Kirby, and Mario games.

that's their own studios making games for them. Deathloop or GT was not that.

 

[sLowEnd]

that's their own studios making games for them. Deathloop or GT was not that.

Irrelevant. Exclusives don't have to be first-party developed.

Years ago, several Spyro and Ratchet and Clank games were PS exclusives developed by Insomniac Games, at the time not Sony owned.
Final Fantasy, for a long stretch of time (FF7 - FF...12?) was PS exclusive, and we know Squaresoft (later Square Enix) isn't Sony owned.

 

[ymdhis]

Final Fantasy, for a long stretch of time (FF7 - FF...12?) was PS exclusive, and we know Squaresoft (later Square Enix) isn't Sony owned.

PS exclusive (also available on PC).
well, ff7-8 anyway, I stopped paying attention after those.

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

If you're bothered by consolidation and cartelism in this instance, then you should be bothered by it in every instance.

 

[Bomby569]

Irrelevant. Exclusives don't have to be first-party developed.

Years ago, several Spyro and Ratchet and Clank games were PS exclusives developed by Insomniac Games, at the time not Sony owned.
Final Fantasy, for a long stretch of time (FF7 - FF...12?) was PS exclusive, and we know Squaresoft (later Square Enix) isn't Sony owned.

Own studios i think are one thing and are a company issue, not really for us to agree or not, it's theirs to do whatever they want.
Third party exclusives, timed or not, or studios that are bought just to grab more exclusives are another, that's just being anticonsumer, they don't really need to buy the companies to have those games on their platforms.

2 different things in my opinion.

 

[sLowEnd]

Own studios i think are one thing and are a company issue, not really for us to agree or not, it's theirs to do whatever they want.
Third party exclusives, timed or not, or studios that are bought just to grab more exclusives are another, that's just being anticonsumer, they don't really need to buy the companies to have those games on their platforms.

2 different things in my opinion.

It might be anticonsumer, but the motive for making exclusives is pretty clear, and purchasing companies ensures control over said exclusives. Going back to my Square Enix example, eventually they starting putting out ports of previously exclusive Final Fantasy games on all sorts of platforms. If Sony had owned Square Enix, they would've had some say in whether or not that could happen.

 

[LabRat 891]

This sure seems familiar....

-*looks at history*-
'we think you're going to take away X, based on your history'
"No, I'm not going to take away X"
-attention moves to another-
"We've decided it is in the best interests to take away X"

Welcome to politics, fully pervading and perverting our video games

 

[Camm]

Really does depend on your definition here.

Would Redfall have come out on PS if Zenimax wasn't bought by Microsoft? Most certainly.
Was Redfall announced for PS? Nope (nor was it announced at all actually).
Was Redfall in development for PS? Not really at that stage of development. You would have taken into consideration the performance of the platform, but it was being bookended by the Series S on the lowend anyway, and this early in development no one cares about optimizing for a platform.

Honestly, PS users (and its PS users) need to quit whinging & buy a PC or an Xbox, like everyone else has had to buy a PS to buy those platforms exclusives for the last 2 decades.

 

[Shihab]

You don't pick what's acceptable and what's not solely by how you like or dislike the parties involved.
Platform owners purchasing a popular, third party, content creator to lock competing platforms out of its popular franchises is anti-consumer. Full stop.

Start your own studios or go fund startups or something. Practice what you preach and "make your own CoDs," MS.

 

[kapone32]

It might be anticonsumer, but the motive for making exclusives is pretty clear, and purchasing companies ensures control over said exclusives. Going back to my Square Enix example, eventually they starting putting out ports of previously exclusive Final Fantasy games on all sorts of platforms. If Sony had owned Square Enix, they would've had some say in whether or not that could happen.

The only reason exclusive Games are on PC is GTA5. Square Enix indeed has my vote as Horizon Zero Dawn plays quite nicely on PC and I totally enjoyed Outriders. There is also the fact that I don't trust Microsoft. That is not without merit as that $1 hook for Gamepass turns into $13.99 quickly and unlike Steam you don't own the folder that the Game resides in. They are also making plenty of money selling their Games on PC. So much so that the PS5 (from my vantage point) seems to have been more refined since launch. Meanwhile every other Game of any significance is stupid in price. There is a DLC for TWWH3 that is $30 the most I paid for DLC for that Game was $14.99. I recently bought a 5600 only because it came with a Key for COH3. Given the fact that COH3 is $79.99 Canadian means that at $189 I paid $110 for a 5600. That is like $75-80 US.

 

[Bomby569]

Really does depend on your definition here.

Would Redfall have come out on PS if Zenimax wasn't bought by Microsoft? Most certainly.
Was Redfall announced for PS? Nope (nor was it announced at all actually).
Was Redfall in development for PS? Not really at that stage of development. You would have taken into consideration the performance of the platform, but it was being bookended by the Series S on the lowend anyway, and this early in development no one cares about optimizing for a platform.

Honestly, PS users (and its PS users) need to quit whinging & buy a PC or an Xbox, like everyone else has had to buy a PS to buy those platforms exclusives for the last 2 decades.

from a karma perspective i absolutely agree, but from a general consumer perspective this will only make things worst, less competition is also worst for us, we will have one less independent company, they will soon all be EA, M$ or Sony or some shit like that. Made worst if this goes nuclear and Sony starts buying more studios to, so M$ buys more, etc...

 

[Colddecked]

You don't pick what's acceptable and what's not solely by how you like or dislike the parties involved.
Platform owners purchasing a popular, third party, content creator to lock competing platforms out of its popular franchises is anti-consumer*. Full stop.

Start your own studios or go fund startups or something. Practice what you preach and "make your own CoDs," MS.

* if you are a playstation fan. If sony was the one buying actiblizz there would be no problem because everyone should get a ps5 right?

 

[KrazyT]

Reminds me the Snes VS Genesis / Megadrive war of the good old times !

 

[Camm]

from a karma perspective i absolutely agree, but from a general consumer perspective this will only make things worst, less competition is also worst for us, we will have one less independent company, they will soon all be EA, M$ or Sony or some shit like that. Made worst if this goes nuclear and Sony starts buying more studios to, so M$ buys more, etc...

Sony is in a dominate position, this isn't really reducing competiton.

 

[Hammerman]

This goes to show how powerful Tech lobbying is. Only with this 'case' do you have people questioning exclusives. Everything else is fine...

If you think exclusives should be illegal. You need to show what is the alternative? How will sports teams compete if they cant sign players exclusively? How will employment contracts work? Can Nike Jordans be made? Can Robert Downey Jr. cut deals? Look at all the companies on Techpowerup.

At the end of the day MS are free to choose how they handle any games. No one is going to regulate exclusives.

The issue is more them & super big companies constantly buying that success off a shelf.

 

[Shihab]

* if you are a playstation fan. If sony was the one buying actiblizz there would be no problem because everyone should get a ps5 right?

I fail to see how a statement in which the subject is the catchall "platform owners" could be interpreted to exclude one of said owners.

 

[BIGMicro]

Any monopoly, oligopoly - limiting the offer, products is not good. Closed platforms like console eg Xbox and PS are not good - If there is also control of the game publisher. Games should come out on any platform and that should be the decision of the studio.
Maybe that's why regulators shouldn't allow studios that create games to be purchased by producers of the consoles themselves. You want to create a game - produce it yourself, employ these people at your place, but not by buying someone else's brands or create a separate company for this.
Because the gaming market is becoming a smaller and smaller field of consumer freedom and choices. Subscription means that the remnants of freedom in purchasing goods are slowly becoming a past. You pay for the goods - and you only have access to the content, you lose the right to dispose of a copy of the game especially on PC, just like a copy of a CD or a book, and there are no differences. The digital release changes nothing. Companies don't like it when someone has the rights to their product, their copy - even a digital one, which they could sell - a real horror!

This is not about Sony or Microsoft nad Xbox vs PS, I see many consider this as I love Xbox and am from the US. The second player will say Microsoft suk*s, Sony is better!!!
It's about the gaming market at all and the power over the title library in general. Competitiveness only by acquiring other companies when you do not produce games yourself is not good here. Microsoft somehow didnt hurry with release dozen game titles eg AoE for several years. On the other hand, taking over other companies because you have unlimited cash resources - yes. Studios producing games will always be smaller - if one of the largest companies like Activision-Blizzard can be taken over so easly, what chance does any independent company have with such a giants ?

 

[Bomby569]

Sony is in a dominate position, this isn't really reducing competiton.

I don't even own any console, as a consumer there is one less independent company. How is this not reducing competition?

But even from a console perspective, there is also Nintendo, this is not a 2 way thing, Nintendo even has a bigger market share then M$ if i'm not mistaken. And there is one less company, it easier for them to make all AAA games 100$ if the 3 own all studios then if you have independent companies.

 

[Hammerman]

Any monopoly, oligopoly - limiting the offer, products is not good. Closed platforms like console eg Xbox and PS are not good - If there is also control of the game publisher. Games should come out on any platform and that should be the decision of the studio.

Nothing wrong with closed or open! Its how markets work.
Some stuff is better open, others closed.

FOSS idealogy gets misused all the time. Lets not apply it here as some companies now use this technique for their own profit. The word 'Open' is valuable but also misleading. See OpenAI etc.

Its good people talk about competition and how things work but the average person is massively misinformed. Social media types do an awful awful job on this stuff too as they lack domain knowledge despite good intentions.

 

[Bomby569]

Nothing wrong with closed or open! Its how markets work.
Some stuff is better open, others closed.

FOSS idealogy gets misused all the time. Lets not apply it here as some companies now use this technique for their own profit. The word 'Open' is valuable but also misleading. See OpenAI etc.

Its good people talk about competition and how things work but the average person is massively misinformed. Social media types do an awful awful job on this stuff too as they lack domain knowledge despite good intentions.

he didn't said closed platforms are bad, he said "Closed platforms like console eg Xbox and PS are not good - If there is also control of the game publisher"

 

[mb194dc]

Microsoft and anti competative behaviour? Who'd have thunk it?

At least they used to actually improve their products on an annual basis. Now it's just software as a service and price hikes...