Bless your little heart.Unfortunately, if you're unwilling to buy a second console or a gaming capable PC, that's the only viable option. Do Sony or Nintendo offer some better alternative if I don't want to buy their console but want to play their games?
Well, until Sony cuts their exclusives out (FF7, FF16, SpiderMan, Wolverine....etc).......then MS will start to do so.Yeah he's right this good guy Phil, why locking a content to one piece of hardware ? They wouldn't do that, like Starfiel... oh shit
Of course it's the usual disingenous bullshit from him, he even stole the "safe kids" line from Jim RyanYeah he's right this good guy Phil, why locking a content to one piece of hardware ? They wouldn't do that, like Starfiel... oh shit
He's a gaming politician.Of course it's the usual disingenous bullshit from him, he even stole the "safe kids" line from Jim Ryan![]()
Each company will continue to release games on the platforms that make strategical and financial sense to them.
They bought full publishers amd studios to be able to have exclusives on their own ecosystem and services![]()
Phil used the Playstation/Xbox example in his comment.Starfield isn't locked to one piece of hardware. Its available on Xbox consoles and PC.
So games like CoD or Minecraft? Seems consistent to me.Phil used the Playstation/Xbox example in his comment.
Did you not read the comment I was replying to for context?So games like CoD or Minecraft? Seems consistent to me.
Yeah maybe. But he has expressed his dislike in exclusives in the past as well. I think Starfield and The Elder Scrolls exclusivity evolved from Xbox fans loudly wishing for it and complaning about the unclear message at first after the Bethesda purchase. We’ll see what happens with Doom, it’s a classic IP that Playstation gamers also love, I don’t think Xbox exclusivity would fly well PR-wise.So will MS. He's just whispering sweet nothings again because he needs approval while doing the opposite.
You know he means Xbox and PlayStation on multiple devices.Yeah he's right this good guy Phil, why locking a content to one piece of hardware ? They wouldn't do that, like Starfiel... oh shit
Yes absolutely, it's a business and Phil is doing is part. And they are right to keep some games exclusives. But pretending to be the good guy all the time with sentences like "if everybody plays everybody wins" is being pathetic, he's just ridiculous, so what about people believing all this marketing bullshit...Well, until Sony cuts there exclusives out (FF7, FF16, SpiderMan, Wolverine....etc).......then MS will start to do so.
The MP games will stay cross platform. The single player games will not for a while. MS needs SOME exclusives to bring new players in.
Did your comment make reference to Phil saying all games on Xbox would hit every other game console or is it possible he was speaking of specific cases? Seems to me he was talking about playing games together like cross play. Why would a single player Starfield game have cross play as mentioned earlier? Let be honest there are far more MS titles on other consoles than vice-versa.Did you not read the comment I was replying to for context?
I get your point but Xbox + PC. That's two plateforme. Not to mention XCloud.He is? They just spent 75 billion dollars and are making previously multi-platform series exclusive. Sony is doing the same, albeit to a less extent.
Seems the opposite of obvious to me.
There's no doubt in my mind that Sony will be releasing games on PC day and date with console at some point. They'll realize that having millions more potential day 1 software customers on PC will be less risky than counting on customers being able to buy a PlayStation console. If console hardware by itself was their primary source of revenue then it would make more sense to focus on growing install base. But it's not, software attachment is. So exploiting the PC install base is a smart move. Sure, they'll lose some console sales but if those people are still buying the games on PC day 1 it ultimately won't matter.Of course.
I mean, even Jim Ryan was crying not that long ago that only few million players are experiencing "amazing" games like TLOU2.
And he is sure as shit not increasing that numbers when that games will be Playstation only...
According to MS, Phil and their CFO they don't buy them to make their games exclusive.He is? They just spent 75 billion dollars and are making previously multi-platform series exclusive. Sony is doing the same, albeit to a less extent.
Seems the opposite of obvious to me.
According to Sony they don't plan to release all their games on PC and they don't plan to release them day one.There's no doubt in my mind that Sony will be releasing games on PC day and date with console at some point. They'll realize that having millions more potential day 1 software customers on PC will be less risky than counting on customers being able to buy a PlayStation console. If console hardware by itself was their primary source of revenue then it would make more sense to focus on growing install base. But it's not, software attachment is. So exploiting the PC install base is a smart move. Sure, they'll lose some console sales but if those people are still buying the games on PC day 1 it ultimately won't matter.
Unfortunately, if you're unwilling to buy a second console or a gaming capable PC, that's the only viable option. Do Sony or Nintendo offer some better alternative if I don't want to buy their console but want to play their games?
So what's changing "in the future" with regard to PC+xbox releases? MS have been doing PC releases since 2014.I get your point but Xbox + PC. That's two plateforme. Not to mention XCloud.
Not releasing on Playstation doesn't mean you are making an exclusivity.
PC, mobile, television day one nerdYeah he's right this good guy Phil, why locking a content to one piece of hardware ? They wouldn't do that, like Starfiel... oh shit
So what's changing "in the future" with regard to PC+xbox releases? MS have been doing PC releases since 2014.
CoD, Elder scrolls, Doom, etc have always had a PC release. He is clearly talking about console exclusives by the platform holders and mentions Playstation by name. He is not saying he will release more games in a xbox + Pc combo in the future. He has been doing that for years.
He is talking in the context of the Activision acquisition and its games not becoming exclusive.
"Spencer, who has pledged to make Call of Duty available for the rival Sony PlayStation at least for some period of time, said the idea of games made exclusively for one device “is something we’re just going to see less and less of.
Maybe you happen in your household to buy an Xbox and I buy a PlayStation and our kids want to play together and they can't because we bought the wrong piece of plastic to plug into our television,”
People are just contorting that so that it makes sense to them why what he is saying isn't what he has done for some of the other games by saying "but it's on PC". Yeah, it always has been. That's not what he's talking about.
Not surprising that you're stanning as usualSounds like wishful thinking, which is hilariously contrasted by the next line in bold. Not surprising that this is how your brain reads this.
Nintendo will never change, but Sony has already proven Phil Spencer right with their new initiatives in the past 2 years. You can already play some of the biggest PlayStation studio games without owning a PlayStation console and Sony continues to integrate studios into their portfolio who are experts at porting games to the PC platform. It wont be long before games franchises like Uncharted, SpiderMan, TLoU, God of War, etc release day and date on PlayStation consoles and PC...probably once Sony's PC storefront is fully functional and online.They are the console industry leaders. What is your point? They don't need to offer an alternative, people are very happy to buy their consoles. Obviously. This is not that complex.
Eventually Phil may have a point. But this, at this point in time, is just PR. It's meaningless. What else would he say? He's the guy who has doubled down (more than anyone else) on non-exclusivity, and his company is in last place. Of course he's going to comment on how the paradigm is changed... he's desperately hoping it changes!
It's not happening anytime soon, that should be really obvious.
Not surprising that you're stanning as usual
"Gaming chief also hopes for fewer exclusive titles, more interoperability among consoles in the future"
Selling 3rd party games is profitable for Sony but not Microsoft? Some games they will keep multi, but not many. Unless you think they are just going to hand sony the market and 30% of everything they earn.Well Sony said that even if Bungie games will be multiplatform even in rival consoles day one, PS Studios will be making more PS exclusive games in the FY that ends in 2026 than in the current one. Jimbo also said in the context of being asked about 3rd party support that they plan to have more exclusives on PS5 than in any other of their previous consoles. And well, I don't see Nintendo making games for other consoles or PC.
I assume Phil is talking only about Xbox console exclusives.
According to MS, Phil and their CFO they don't buy them to make their games exclusive.
But instead to grow their GP catalog securing the support of these companies puttting all their games there day one. Their main goal is to grow GP and turn it into the Netflix/Spotify of the videogames, not to 'steal' market share to favor Xbox in the console wars.
They also need to keep selling in these rival platforms because their market share is huge. According to what MS said to regulators it wouldn't be a profitable business for them to turn them console exclusive.
According to Sony they don't plan to release all their games on PC and they don't plan to release them day one.
It makes sense because 1st party game sales are a very small portion of their business. The main one is to sell 3rd party games for their console/game store. To sell hardware, accesories and services for that console is also a huge business for them way bigger than 1st party sales. They won't destroy their main business just to sell a few more copies of their games on PC, which is a way smaller business.
For them makes more sense to port to PC only some of their games, not all. And to do it years after their original release on PS once the game completed its sales cycle there and has been included in their game sub too. At that point where the game almost no longer generates more revenue, iit's a good secondary extra for them to put it in game subs and PC. Did it in this way doesn't negatively PS hardware and software sales. To do it with all games and day one very likely would.
Except they're doing exactly that. Starfield was being made for PS4/PS5 previously.According to MS, Phil and their CFO they don't buy them to make their games exclusive.
Not my fault if PC is getting all the games. Sony loves PC now and Microsoft is dedicated to this platform too. That's it.So what's changing "in the future" with regard to PC+xbox releases? MS have been doing PC releases since 2014.
CoD, Elder scrolls, Doom, etc have always had a PC release. He is clearly talking about console exclusives by the platform holders and mentions Playstation by name. He is not saying he will release more games in a xbox + Pc combo in the future. He has been doing that for years.
He is talking in the context of the Activision acquisition and its games not becoming exclusive.
"Gaming chief also hopes for fewer exclusive titles, more interoperability among consoles in the future"
"Spencer, who has pledged to make Call of Duty available for the rival Sony PlayStation at least for some period of time, said the idea of games made exclusively for one device “is something we’re just going to see less and less of.
Maybe you happen in your household to buy an Xbox and I buy a PlayStation and our kids want to play together and they can't because we bought the wrong piece of plastic to plug into our television,”
People are just contorting that so that it makes sense to them why what he is saying isn't what he has done for some of the other games by saying "but it's on PC". Yeah, it always has been. That's not what he's talking about.
I can’t fault him. The moves to embrace PC and cloud are right given they are far back in third place.
Not my fault if PC is getting all the games. Sony loves PC now and Microsoft is dedicated to this platform too. That's it.
Anyway, well see what the future is holding but imo in 20 years we will have a VERY different gaming market, that is for sure.
All the more reason to keep CoD exclusive to Xbox/PC.
Watch the people commenting in here do an about face when Jim echoes the same sentiments next year![]()
How are you guys coming to this conclusion? Is Uncharted going to Xbox? Halo to PlayStation? Zelda to both?I think we very well may be seeing the beginning of the end of console exclusives.
![]()
No. You are looking for a war where there is not one. I was mearly pointing out that it was not unreasonable for someone that had commented to think that Phil was talking about consoles since he used consoles as the example. I'm covered no matter where they put Starfield.Did your comment make reference to Phil saying all games on Xbox would hit every other game console or is it possible he was speaking of specific cases? Seems to me he was talking about playing games together like cross play. Why would a single player Starfield game have cross play as mentioned earlier? Let be honest there are far more MS titles on other consoles than vice-versa.
How are you guys coming to this conclusion? Is Uncharted going to Xbox? Halo to PlayStation? Zelda to both?
I have nothing against PC releases and think they're great, the point is that they have always been doing PC releases since 2014. what he is referring to is less and less console exclusives existing in the future with interoperability. The likes of Cod and Minecraft, MS owned IPs on multiple consoles. It's in the context of the Activision deal.Not my fault if PC is getting all the games. Sony loves PC now and Microsoft is dedicated to this platform too. That's it.
Anyway, well see what the future is holding but imo in 20 years we will have a VERY different gaming market, that is for sure.
what he is referring to is less and less console exclusives existing in the future with interoperability. The likes of Cod and Minecraft, MS owned IPs on multiple consoles. It's in the context of the Activision deal.
He is talking in the context of the Activision acquisition and its games not becoming exclusive.
'In the short term, "some people in some companies" won't love this approach, Spencer said, without singling anyone out. But in the long run, Spencer sees a future with fewer platform exclusives in it'
Can't even read the OP correctly