Microsoft Denies Strategic Removal of PlayStation 5 Games From Development

[Gahl1k]

The game looks and sounds mediocre. I doubt PS fans would care about it as a game if it wasn't Xbox exclusive.

 

[N3utro]

MS boss to Harvey at MS: "our goal is to make games exclusives to PC and xbox to rival with sony".
Harvey Smith during interview: *repeat same thing*
MS boss to Harvey at MS: "dude are you stupid or what? It was supposed to be an internal info, not made to be public".
Harvey: "errrrrrrrrr"
MS boss to MS marketing specialist: "fix this mess plz"
MS marketing specialist: "iT's NoT a mIcRoSoFt RuLe, iT'S a cAsE bY cAse bAsis"

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Next up battlefield

 

[Punkenjoy]

Well should we say the same things as PlayStation fanboys were saying all those years, just buy an Xbox.

But seriously, i am mixed on this.

On one side, i think game should be enjoyed on the platform of choice of the user. Gaming can be come quite expensive if you have to buy a Xbox, a Playstation, a Switch and A PC.

On another side, i think there is quality benefits for having to support only one platform. You can spend more time optimizing or improving the game and less time just porting the game. I wouldn't imagine how good Nintendo games would be if they were developing it for all the platform.

 

[Bomby569]

Well should we say the same things as PlayStation fanboys were saying all those years, just buy an Xbox.

But seriously, i am mixed on this.

On one side, i think game should be enjoyed on the platform of choice of the user. Gaming can be come quite expensive if you have to buy a Xbox, a Playstation, a Switch and A PC.

On another side, i think there is quality benefits for having to support only one platform. You can spend more time optimizing or improving the game and less time just porting the game. I wouldn't imagine how good Nintendo games would be if they were developing it for all the platform.

aren't they both just cheap part PC's, with very similar APU's from the same company? is that difference in optimization that much important

 

[kapone32]

I want them to try it with CDPR or Sega. They would quickly be told to go pound sand as all of these Companies are happily making money from the Culture War that is PS vs Xbox. When the Activision acquisition is complete we will start to see more of it. But what is it?

PS is objectively a better experience than the Xbox environment. In North America we were fed a steady drip of FPS (Battlefield, COD,Halo) while the progression of the Arcade was realized on the other side of the planet. In Europe Metro and The Witcher were fresh ideas that were new and different experiences but those were in the space that is the king of it all the PC. The other thing is PS already has a Gameplan for their environment anyway.

Anyone who enjoyed Horizon Zero Dawn is looking at the new Game with envy. Just like Spiderman once that Game gets (I think it used to be Gold) a certain number of unit sales it will now be ported (Correctly) to the PC. There was $150+ billion in Electronic Gaming in 2022 and projected to be over 200 in 2023. Some of that is PC ports, so in essence if you have a PC that can rival a PS5 or Xbox1 and want to enjoy Gaming get yourself a PC.

Microsoft is trying to do a Walmart in the Gaming Space and it is not cool. Gamepass and One Drive are tools to do to us what they are doing to the market. They are trying to lock us into their environment. Try to open the folder of a Game you own after updating Windows and you will be greeted with this. The folder is there on my E drive but as you can see I need to reinstall it even though I am using my MS account but I still have to re download the entire Game.

 

[Punkenjoy]

aren't they both just cheap part PC's, with very similar APU's from the same company? is that difference in optimization that much important

Not sure about the "Cheap" parts but in theory yes for PC/Xbox Series X and S/PlayStation 5. They have a x86 CPU based on Zen2 and a GPU more less based on RDNA2. There is still some difference but they are still fairly close. The real benefits is if you have a well optimized shaders for RNDA2, it should be fine for the 2 other platform.

But that stop there, Xbox and PC have a different API and libraries than Playstation. You still need to adapt the code to use those, make sure you doing well etc.

And on PC, the main GPU vendor isn't AMD, it's Nvidia. (And on PC, there is so much architecture you have to make sure your game run wells.

And then there is the Switch case, Different API/Libraries and totally different architecture and performance level.

But anyway, if your theory was right, games would run with the same performance level all the time when multi platform. But in the past we saw many games running better on either PS5 or Xbox series X depending on where they have put their effort.

 

[kapone32]

Not sure about the "Cheap" parts but in theory yes for PC/Xbox Series X and S/PlayStation 5. They have a x86 CPU based on Zen2 and a GPU more less based on RDNA2. There is still some difference but they are still fairly close. The real benefits is if you have a well optimized shaders for RNDA2, it should be fine for the 2 other platform.

But that stop there, Xbox and PC have a different API and libraries than Playstation. You still need to adapt the code to use those, make sure you doing well etc.

And on PC, the main GPU vendor isn't AMD, it's Nvidia. (And on PC, there is so much architecture you have to make sure your game run wells.

And then there is the Switch case, Different API/Libraries and totally different architecture and performance level.

But anyway, if your theory was right, games would run with the same performance level all the time when multi platform. But in the past we saw many games running better on either PS5 or Xbox series X depending on where they have put their effort.

Which is why if you are looking for console ports you should use AMD.

 

[Camm]

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.

Is Activision competing against other publishers? In an absolute sense sure, but the publisher market is saturated as we can see by the 1000's of games released annually. The platform market however (driven by access to AAA titles) is highly contested.

 

[chr0nos]

Microsoft is trying to do a Walmart in the Gaming Space and it is not cool. Gamepass and One Drive are tools to do to us what they are doing to the market. They are trying to lock us into their environment. Try to open the folder of a Game you own after updating Windows and you will be greeted with this. The folder is there on my E drive but as you can see I need to reinstall it even though I am using my MS account but I still have to re download the entire Game.

View attachment 289345

Thats just MS being dumb on DRM handling, but i read somewhere that they fixed the issue, it does say install but it just checks files when you "reinstall". You dont have to get Gamepass or Onedrive no one is forcing you, its just that Gamepass is that good when u have a PC and Xbox, not having to buy $40+ USD games on first party titles is a great deal.

 

[kapone32]

Thats just MS being dumb on DRM handling, but i read somewhere that they fixed the issue, it does say install but it just checks files when you "reinstall". You dont have to get Gamepass or Onedrive no one is forcing you, its just that Gamepass is that good when u have a PC and Xbox, not having to buy $40+ USD games on first party titles is a great deal.

On the face of it yes. There is the truth though that it looks like a great deal at $1 and there is a trick to keep it there but one day that too will be gone. I would rather give my money to GOG, Humble, Green Man Gaming and Fanatical before buying anything from the MS store. It does have it's place though as you said and AAA Games are more like $50-60 US now so it does look even more attractive in that regard but even the Free Games from Epic is a better hook

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Yeah just leave my epic freebies alone dammit lol

 

[kapone32]

Hi,
Yeah just leave my epic freebies alone dammit lol

Especially during Xmas last year.

 

[ThrashZone]

Especially during Xmas last year.

Hi,
Yeah the so called "parents" fortnite lawsuit really tighten epic's belts on free offerings

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

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.

SquEnix has alway focused on Japanese platforms.

Well should we say the same things as PlayStation fanboys were saying all those years, just buy an Xbox.

But seriously, i am mixed on this.

On one side, i think game should be enjoyed on the platform of choice of the user. Gaming can be come quite expensive if you have to buy a Xbox, a Playstation, a Switch and A PC.

On another side, i think there is quality benefits for having to support only one platform. You can spend more time optimizing or improving the game and less time just porting the game. I wouldn't imagine how good Nintendo games would be if they were developing it for all the platform.

There are massive benefits for sticking with a single platform even more if that platform is a console and you avoid the PC, which is a hot mess, completely.

It's not worth getting upset about either there have always been in house exclusives and developers who focused on just one platform even in the golden age where SEGA, Nintendo, and the PC were all doing their own thing.

 

[persondb]

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.

Kirby isn't owned by Nintendo but HAL Labs only ever does games for nintendo consoles and they literally share office space and have so much history with them that I have no clue on why they haven't become a part of Nintendo.

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

Kirby isn't owned by Nintendo but HAL Labs only ever does games for nintendo consoles and they literally share office space and have so much history with them that I have no clue on why they haven't become a part of Nintendo.

They are refered to as a second party developer for Nintendo. They nearly went bankrupt during the Nintendo days and got bailed out by Nintendo with the result being that the only develop for Nintendo. The relationship works for both parties.

Same sort of deal with Intelligent and their Fire Emblem series. They aren't "owned" by Nintendo but they work closely with them and Nintendo publishes all their stuff for them.

Everyone does this. Their are multiple developers that while independent of the larger company work exclusively with them. There are perks for both sides in this. They aren't just financial either. They have axcess to much better support and resources and really get to know the hardware they are dealing with and can crank out better products.

 

[Totally]

Welcome to politics, fully pervading and perverting our video games

might as well add this guy to that.

PR guy: "It's not that we are actively excluding X, the reality is that we didn't make plans to include X. It's just a coincidence."

It's like they went to the same PR school that DC PR guy went to "It's not that we fired Henry Cavill, we just chose to not renew his contract."

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

might as well add this guy to that.



It's like they went to the same PR school that DC PR guy went to "It's not that we fired Henry Cavill, we just chose to not renew his contract."

Except neither of these things are actually true. Games are not really political. What did happen is the games are enjoyed by a much wider audience now and so studios adjusted to cater to that wider audience and what the majority of people and their consumers want. Some people threw a fit about this but outside of random tantrums on twitter it's a mouse fart in a tornado and the people throwing a fit do not matter in the larger sense of things. If you find that something does not suit your tastes it means that your tastes are firmly out of the majority and the company that took it is looking to appeal to the majority.

For Henry it's not uncommon for films to reboot with different actors (which is what happened) and Henry had a lot of things on his plate. Just as he didn't get fired from The Witcher he wanted to do Warhammer 40k for Amazon and just wasn't going to be part of it.

 

[Colddecked]

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.

Usually its PS owners that complain about MS buying devs or studios. You can tell when they use phrases like develop your own games.