Playstation 5

[Kiltman]

11 hours ago, Xmad said:

It will be, the one massive downside of Gamepass is Xbox doesn't make direct money from their games anymore (I mean people will still buy Halo, Starfield etc.) but not as many who will just buy gamepass and play it until they're done. 

But on PS5 it's 70% of revenue vs. an incredibly small percentage for a single game on gamepass. 

1000% Bethesda needs their games on P.C otherwise the console versions just gonna be a buggy mess. 

 

Eh, One of the Major points of Gamepass is to get people on their platforms though. And they are building their teams out to get you to subscribe year long. $10-15/month = $120-180 a year, it’s not like they are giving a ton of games away for nothing.   That’s more than most people would spend on exclusives for Xbox and PlayStation in a given year. You look at the data on all of them, and people don’t buy a lot of them. 

If people are on their platform then they get a cut of every digital sale on Xbox for 3rd party games or they get money from people using Windows/office on PC on top of the xCloud revenue. For xCloud and mobile it’s a new audience/revenue stream entirely. Even moreso for xCloud when you can do it from a browser and most people in the world who have bad PCs can play next gen games that way.
 

The whole point is to get people into those loops, offering the first premium game from a $7.5 billion dollar acquisition day one elsewhere seems to go against the whole point of it. Especially if it’s next gen exclusive releasing Fall 2021, because PS5 install base ≠ PS4’s historically massive install base.
 

But I won’t say it’s impossible, I could see them doing something like a delayed release or yeah just feeling fine with the advantage of having it on Gamepass vs $70 upfront cost elsewhere. But it’s far from a sure thing and if anything seems to be leaning towards not being the case. 
 

I think if Sony said yes let’s allow Gamepass onto PlayStation, you’d see Xbox be happy to do that. I think there is also way more room for argument with Elder Scrolls 6 or Wolfenstein 3  to come to PS5 than Starfield. Especially when we know Bethesda personally wasn’t above holding it back from people with Sony negotiating to get console exclusivity for awhile (can’t remember if it was 6 months or a year) before the purchase happened. 
 

I wouldn’t get my hopes up, that’s all. If it does — great... I’m happy for people who only play on PS5. I wish all 1st party games would eventually make their way elsewhere, let’s more people play these games. Hopefully to start, Sony at least starts releasing their games on PC more.

[elevators_rule]

Yeah, I'd be absolutely shocked if games like Starfield or TES6 are on PS5 at their release. I could see it being a one year timed exclusive and then releasing on PS5 after, but that's absolutely best case scenario IMO. I just don't see the scenario where Microsoft paid 7.5 billion to buy the company to have it available everywhere. If Game Pass is all they wanted, they could have negotiated a deal at a fraction of the price.

Edited November 2, 2020 by elevators_rule

[scar988]

1 hour ago, elevators_rule said:

Yeah, I'd be absolutely shocked if games like Starfield or TES6 are on PS5 at their release. I could see it being a one year timed exclusive and then releasing on PS5 after, but that's absolutely best case scenario IMO. I just don't see the scenario where Microsoft paid 7.5 billion to buy the company to have it available everywhere. If Game Pass is all they wanted, they could have negotiated a deal at a fraction of the price.

How does timed releases not help them though? They'll get the PS5 crowd and it won't hurt anyone.

[elevators_rule]

18 minutes ago, scar988 said:

How does timed releases not help them though? They'll get the PS5 crowd and it won't hurt anyone.

I think timed exclusivity is definitely a good option and possible. A lot of people who really love these games will want to play them right away and will buy either Game Pass on PC, or even might consider getting an Xbox if they plan on playing all of them. Then, releasing a year later, you could sell a ton of games to PS players. You're making people interested in the Xbox console/ecosystem while still opening yourself up to the huge player-base that the PS5 will no doubt have. Effectively you're having your cake and eating it too.

I don't, however, think there's a realistic chance they're released on the PS5 in any other way. Definitely not there on launch, and definitely not a short timed exclusive (such as a month or so, which I've seen thrown around a bit on twitter). While bringing people to Game Pass is part of Microsoft's overall strategy, I still believe the main point of this acquisition is to address the largest complaint about Xbox right now which is the lack of exclusives. If you were to imagine these games making their way to the PS5, a 1 year+ timed exclusivity is the only way it acknowledges that point, IMO.

[Kiltman]

2 hours ago, elevators_rule said:

Yeah, I'd be absolutely shocked if games like Starfield or TES6 are on PS5 at their release. I could see it being a one year timed exclusive and then releasing on PS5 after, but that's absolutely best case scenario IMO. I just don't see the scenario where Microsoft paid 7.5 billion to buy the company to have it available everywhere. If Game Pass is all they wanted, they could have negotiated a deal at a fraction of the price.

Yeah my thoughts too (put way more concisely ha)

22 minutes ago, scar988 said:

How does timed releases not help them though? They'll get the PS5 crowd and it won't hurt anyone.

It helps get more money, but they maybe weigh it against platform gains if they don't release it elsewhere. Especially after getting dunked on an entire generation over exclusives.
Like if it's known to be coming out elsewhere, people have less incentive to come over to their platforms... even if it's a year later.

I wanted to try to see how much money they would theoretically be walking away from. If Ps5 follows a similar trajectory to PS4, they'll have like 12 million units - 25 million units within Starfield's first year. Skyrim Didn't hit 20 million units on a much bigger install base (PC/360/PS3) until 2-3 years after launching in 2011. However Fallout 4 probably sold 20 mil year one after their biggest launch of 12 million.
It's hard to really get concrete numbers because Bethesda was a private company. But what I'm trying to say is they aren't going to get a huge market on PS5 in Fall 2021 to Fall 2022. So it's not like throwing away huge piles of money. If we say like 30% of the 20 mil Year one Fallout buyers were on PS4 (which seems about right for market breakdown) That's about $6 million Fallout 4 buyers on the PS4, which was 17% of the 35 million PS4 users at the time. Theoretically these numbers would be less for Starfield, since it's a new franchise, launching closer to the start of a generation and PS5 won't have as much of a separation from Xbox as they did last time.
Even it it stays the same, that $420 million (6m x $70) is certainly a nice chunk of change.
So they would have to look at it.

• How many of that 6 million player base go to PC, XCloud or buy an Xbox Series X|S? For it being on Gamepass but also for the varying degrees of timed exclusivity.
• Will that player subscribe to gamepass? If so, will we get them on there for at least 4 months-5 months ($60-$75) and equal out the cost of the game.
• How much will we make from Expansions year one? Especially with more player base because of Gamepass.
• How much does this help our marketing and output? How much were we going to spend on exclusives that we don't need to spend?
• How much do we save cutting out development time for PS5? (which goes on well after the release and expansions)

I think if they crunch the numbers and at least half that $420mil, it starts to be less of a pull.
And I think it likely would given a lot of that.

 

I'm not rooting either way, I get both sides. Just trying to think it out.
With what Phil and others have said Starfield in particular doesn't seem likely.
Maybe with Elder Scrolls in like 2025, by then the install base should at least double and you're looking at like a $840m to a Billion dollars potentially before taking out those lost cost answers. Elder Scrolls is a major franchise industry wide, and while they've had some level of exclusivity with Microsoft throughout, it would be more of a "stealing away narrative" there than the new ip. If they did like 18- 24 month exclusivity that probably gets the widest reach as eventually those people who don't want to leave playstation at all get in but XBox still gets all the benefits of a basically exclusive title.

It's definitely complex. But it could just be overthinking it.
Like it could just very well be "We did the math, we paid $7.5 billion and it'll be worth that for us to have it only on our platforms." on Xbox's end.

[scar988]

@KiltmanThank for that explanation, man. I was getting confused about this and that broke it down perfectly.

[JBURGE]

I have voiced my opinion on it already, but I still expect to see all of Bethesda's currently slated games on PS5

[showtime]

"when I think about where people are going to be playing and the number of devices that we had, and we have xCloud and PC and Game Pass and our console base, I don't have to go ship those games on any other platform other than the platforms that we support in order to kind of make the deal work for us." -- Phil Spencer

[Kiltman]

9 hours ago, JBURGE said:

I have voiced my opinion on it already, but I still expect to see all of Bethesda's currently slated games on PS5

It’s honestly a who the hell knows situation at this point, I get it.

Things like @showtime just posted point one way, other stuff sounds like the other. It doesn’t really matter going back & forth... we won’t really know until the deal will be finalized next May-June and they can clearly state what’s happening.

It sucks for people making a choice on these launch window consoles, but most PS5 and Xbox Series X | S will know if they will get to play Bethesda games or not when picking a console out.

[Heimdallr]

At the end of the day, it is sort of silly to play a Bethesda game on a console... too many bugs, and half the point of playing is the mods.

[elevators_rule]

1 hour ago, Heimdallr said:

At the end of the day, it is sort of silly to play a Bethesda game on a console... too many bugs, and half the point of playing is the mods.

I mean, given the choice, pretty much every game is objectively significantly better on PC. A lot of people still play console only, though.

[Heimdallr]

1 minute ago, elevators_rule said:

I mean, given the choice, pretty much every game is objectively significantly better on PC. A lot of people still play console only, though.

Disagree. Some games, especially really high volume games (COD, Madden, FIFA, etc.) are better on console.

Bethesda is really the only AAA studio with huge sales that is better on PC, due to their constant bugs, and the type of games that they make, which are so reliant on the modding community. 

[elevators_rule]

Just now, Heimdallr said:

Disagree. Some games, especially really high volume games (COD, Madden, FIFA, etc.) are better on console.

Bethesda is really the only AAA studio with huge sales that is better on PC, due to their constant bugs, and the type of games that they make, which are so reliant on the modding community. 

Eh, CoD used to be that way years ago, but nowadays CoD is effectively equal. The playerbase is massive and the devs fully support it. You get much better framerates and resolution on PC, but there are hackers sometimes. I'll say that's a wash, but in my personal opinion PC pulls ahead. Sports game I'll give you. Historically they've just always been much better on console; I couldn't imagine playing one on PC. Every other game, though... just seems to be way better on PC. Every single player game isn't even a question: Assassins Creed, Far Cry, Witcher, Cyberpunk (when it's out), Monster Hunter, etc. are all waaaaaay better on PC. There just isn't anything console does better for a single player game, while PC boosts the FPS/Res significantly.

[Heimdallr]

4 minutes ago, elevators_rule said:

Eh, CoD used to be that way years ago, but nowadays CoD is effectively equal. The playerbase is massive and the devs fully support it. You get much better framerates and resolution on PC, but there are hackers sometimes. I'll say that's a wash, but in my personal opinion PC pulls ahead. 

Strong disagree. I've HEAVILY followed the COD community for the last 10 years, and PC is a disaster on bad years, and playable on good years.

 

4 minutes ago, elevators_rule said:

Every single player game isn't even a question: Assassins Creed, Far Cry, Witcher, Cyberpunk (when it's out), Monster Hunter, etc. are all waaaaaay better on PC. There just isn't anything console does better for a single player game, while PC boosts the FPS/Res significantly.

In the past I would agree, because of the FPS/resolution increase, but on the new consoles, I don't think that will be a huge issue. The new consoles will rival even the top-end PC's for the next 2-5 years, and all of the games you mentioned do not rely on mods NEARLY to the extent that Bethesda games do. I would argue that Bethesda games are borderline unplayable without mods. 

 

[showtime]

4 hours ago, Heimdallr said:

The new consoles will rival even the top-end PC's for the next 2-5 years,

No they won't. They can't rival top end PC's right now, let alone 2-5 years from now.