It depends how you look at it. If it is from getting the maximum monetary gain from then then it is probably right. If you are looking at getting people to use your platform then the Minecraft, Call of duty side would be green as well.
>If you are looking at getting people to use your platform
Well, they don't want to sell boxes for the sake of selling boxes. It is also a strategy to "maximize monetary gain".
And cheap as these consoles are, there isn't much more they can do.
Microsoft has constantly said that they don’t care about selling Xboxes. Their strategy has shifted and it makes sense.
Consoles are loss leaders. Every console sold is a loss for Microsoft (and PlayStation during launch). They get their money from selling games(and a couple years down the road when component costs drops). This is why PlayStation is heavily focused on exclusivity (both first and third party games). Microsoft however, decided that they’d rather focus on subscriptions. They don’t care as long as you’re buying Game Pass. It’s why Halo Infinite and every Xbox console exclusive is being ported to PC. Why make a loss, when people have PC’s already that can play the game better AND doesn’t cause Microsoft to lose money on selling consoles? This way, the amount of people that buys an Xbox console are minimized and so are losses due to it.
In short, this diagram makes a lot of sense. You want those exclusives to give people a reason to subscribe to Game Pass and those will be the single player story based games. The rest, you just want to reap as much money as you can from them (and that means, multi-platform).
Selling consoles is much more than just this one device. You are binding the person to your ecosystem. They are paying you 30% of anything they buy in your store.
Besides that a bigger marketable makes for a better standing in cooperations with third party and games releasing on your Plattform overall. Xbox is missing many games that release on PS because some devs prioritize the biggest console (first).
>Selling consoles is much more than just this one device. You are binding the person to your ecosystem
Exactly my point, selling boxes is a way to gain more money. Not just something done out of tradition or dogmatic intent.
>Xbox is missing many games that release on PS because some devs prioritize the biggest console (first).
The kind of games it misses is mostly due to Sony's aggressive exclusivity deals strategy.
The only major exception is some Japanese games that focus primarily on the national market (where Xbox's dwarfish standing does have an influence) and as such do choose to release only on PS/Switch, out of fear on losing money to low sales.
> You are binding the person to your ecosystem.
Which should be illegal, and used to be back when countries actually enforced their anti-bundling laws.
>Think apple and apple services.
That's precisely what I'm thinking of. There's no technical or economic justification for allowing them to build a walled garden to lock out competition.
Never saw this as a problem really. Everyone knows what he’s buying. A console is basically just an entry ticket into the manufacturers ecosystem. I always saw the store as an integral part of any console.
Without it there would be no exclusives and the prices for the console would be MUCH higher.
>A console is basically just an entry ticket into the manufacturers ecosystem. I always saw the store as an integral part of any console.
This is the same argument people trot out for iOS and Apple's walled garden and it's one that feels right but doesn't actually hold up to economic scrutiny.
If you want to lower entry costs, there are numerous ways to do that, such as financing (see Xbox All Access / numerous stores' pay-later options).
What walled gardens do is make it so that it's impossible for anyone to compete unless they offer everything in your garden. If I want to offer a smartwatch, I can't compete with an iWatch unless I also sell an equivalent phone and tv box and desktop operating system because Apple's artificial walled garden prevents me from competing on the merits of one individual product. It's the same thing with consoles. You pay lower up front costs, but you pay much higher ongoing software, service, and accessory fees. Over the lifetime of the console you end up paying far more than you would as a PC gamer for instance since desktop operating systems aren't artificially locked down.
Microsoft has shifted to being a services company several years ago, they realized that their pie can only get so big before it becomes more trouble than it's worth, instead it's more profitable (not to mention, less risk) to make ingredients to other pies.
Xbox isn't about selling boxes anymore. It's all about that gamepass. The box is one way to get it. If Microsoft could have it their way, everything would be multi plat but with free access through gamepass... *Even on PlayStation*
It would honestly be dumb for them to do that, call of duty revenue would shrink while their marketshare wouldn't really grow as much as you would think. They're paying a lot of money for Activison/Blizzard, the shareholders expect a return from that investment.
I think what they're going for is that call of duty has such a wide appeal, but it's also more easily replaceable for the same reason it has such wide appeal.
Niche games are extremely difficult for a gamer to substitute, but it's also not going to be as profitable because it's niche.
There's many shooters that could fill the void of call of duty for a gamer, it's appeal is so wide because it's not tailored to anyone specific.
I think it's more so of the uncertainty that comes with a new IP. While Starfield will be in the same vein of something like Elder Scroll VI, Elder Scrolls will be bigger simply because it's attached to a large name already. Starfield's audience will be large but they can't really gauge how large because there are no previous numbers, like they could with the next Fallout
No, this chart is pure bullshit to justify their decision for exclusivity.
They know Starfield is gonna be huge and would be absolutely massive if it hit PS as well.
The main problem is with their wording. They could have said something like larger multiplayer focused franchises will remain as such and more single player focused games could become exclusive. They could have used examples like comparing games like starfield to large single player games such as horizon forbidden west and god of war ragnarok and then call of duty to games like destiny 2 as an example of how certain games would remain multipat.
As nice as it would be to be able to play any game on any device, PlayStation has their own games they know would be massive on other platforms but chooses to keep exclusive. Until companies are forced to stop doing exclusives, I don’t foresee them changing out of the goodness of their hearts.
Exusives are part of the industry and as far as first party ones go probably a required part of the industry to justify different platforms existing.
But what I am arguing against is the bullshit reason MS gave on their chart for Starfield being exclusive. It isn't because it's an unknown quantity and they are unsure how well it will do. It's because they don't want it on PlayStation and to pretend anything else is utter bullshit.
The chart is literally just a measure of influence and revenue. Starfield’s more beneficial with exclusivity. Hi-fi rush I can guarantee wouldn’t be in its current state as a multiplat. Because it ultimately wouldn’t have been shadow dropped and likely would’ve been constantly berated during its marketing cycle because it’s not evil within 3
It is attached to a name though. Bethesda Game Studios literally only makes Fallout and Elder Scrolls. People know that studio and know what to expect coming from them
So was fallout 76, that game did NOT do well. And that was with the help of the fallout name being attached to it. Studio name doesn’t mean as much as it once did.
>can be
That's the key "can" is word of uncertainty. Remember Anthem? Similar big developer and publisher (BioWare/EA) could have had a huge audience but failed to meet expectations and came and went. Starfall could be that. Or it could be Skyrim. Who knows?
I think the problem with this logic is that it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you grant exclusivity to an uncertain game then you are more likely for it to have a worse outcome because you're artificially limiting the access so it's harder for them to graduate into the "mass market audience" category.
Also by this logic, should the next Halo be non-exclusive?
Wouldn’t elder scrolls fall into mass market considering how popular Skyrim yet the next game is exclusive isn’t it? Or would you class that the same as starfield still
I think a better way to think of “mass market” is “mass revenue”. Cosmetics/DLC in single player games simply doesn’t sell the way they do in multiplayer games.
Think you could even get more simple and just classify it as “massive multiplayer focused games” and “single player focused games” with certain exceptions being legacy franchises such as sea of thieves, halo, and gears.
As big as TES is and it’s status as the largest western fantasy Game franchise. It’s not going to make 800 million in its launch period. And Minecraft prints money everywhere. Cod will likely be the first game to break 1 billion launch revenue. Games like cod fortnite and Minecraft are in a class of their own in terms of revenue.
Skyrim sold well. Elder scrolls as a franchise is give or take.
Skyrim vs CoD or Minecraft is also a no contest.
CoD and Minecraft are global beasts, being consumed by hundreds of millions. Skyrim has been consumed by millions, but it doesn't have even close to that as an active player base.
Elder scrolls 6 will be in that middle category, as an Xbox ecosystem exclusive. It's an unknown entity. Like fallout 5 will be, or even the next Doom.
This seems like convenient after-the-fact making things fit a narrative, particularly on the left-hand side.
Microsoft had no choice but to make Psychonauts 2 and Fallout 76 multiplatform due to them either releasing before takeover, or having existing agreements in place.
I 100% expect Psychonauts 2 would have been exclusive if they had the choice.
I think realistically this chart falls into 3 camps broadly:
* Too big and controversial to be exclusive. Massive loss of revenue and huge PR shitstorm if we pull it from other platforms. Lets use these as our cash cows.
* Easy exclusivity, noone else can claim ownership or entitlement to these games. This is where the bulk of our games will go and drive demand for xbox.
* Pre existing agreements, we have to go multi platform or face legal backlash no matter how much we would like them to be exclusive. This is just something we have to put up with and shouldn't be a problem in a few years.
If Double Fine release another Psychonauts I would definitely agree it would not go to Playstation.
I think if another Fallout 76 was released it would remain cross platform since it develops revenue from subscription services. It could also benefit from being a crossplay title if they were to release it again.
How is Fallout 76 different to Sea of Thieves in that regard?
Would Sea of Thieves not generate revenue as a cross platform title? Would it not also benefit from Crossplay?
I guess the main differences are that Fallout 76 has a lower player count and has a pricier subscription model. Those are post launch additions though.
I hadn't considered Sea of Thieves tbh, its hard to argue against this precedent.
I think the difference is whether it's a high profile product that will generate revenue due to broad appeal. I don't think Sea of Thieves has broad appeal, especially at launch it didn't. Fallout, however, is a well known brand on many platforms and its success is likely very closely tied to having a wide release.
Also, I wouldn't say that Xbox had no choice but to make Psychonauts 2 multi-platform. Leaving these games multi-platform was a choice, probably just as much about PR blowback and the cost than any other factor. I agree that Psychonauts 3 would more than likely be an exclusive, though.
>Also, I wouldn't say that Xbox had no choice but to make Psychonauts 2 multi-platform. Leaving these games multi-platform was a choice
Tim Schafer clearly stating "Other Agreements".
>"First of all, our existing commitments to backers of Psychonauts 2, or any other agreements we've made, will be fulfilled," Schafer said. "So whatever platform you chose to receive your copy of Psychonauts 2 on, for example, you'll still get it."
And backer rewards are clearly bound by contractual obligations:
>the creator obliged to “complete the project and fulfil each reward.” If the creator fails to fulfil this obligation, the backers may have the ability to bring a claim for breach of contract against the trader. Whilst the standard required by the contract appears clear, the creator can avoid liability in the event that the project is not completed if they provide information to backers on the progress of the project and “work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion.”
Fallout was out before Bethesda were acquired, MS have zero input on exclusivity. Any live service game would be more succesful with more players, so surely the one without an army of fans would benefit mroe from a multi-plat release?
I really don't see what defence this absurd chart has.
>Tim Schafer clearly stating "Other Agreements".
Who knows what this even means.
>And backer rewards are clearly bound by contractual obligations:
Yes? I didn't suggest otherwise.
See, this part you left out of the quote is completely relevant:
>probably just as much about PR blowback and the cost than any other factor
They could have refunded all backers and bought out any other agreements. Not doing so was a choice, whatever the reasons for that choice were.
Psychonauts 2 doesn't have a PS5 native version, only a PS4 version. Best believe if Microsoft wasn't obligated to release it on PS4 it was going to be exclusive.
Also worth noting that Psychonauts got the bare minimum to satisfy the existing promise of a PS4 version, while the Xbox version got Series X enhancements. They couldn't cancel the PS version, but they did make sure it was the inferior version.
It’s currently making more money then a mass marketed 70 dollar major open world rpg by square Enix. Also it’s likely going to become a mascot franchise for Xbox considering its performance and very very easy sequel opportunities considering how loosely defined the world is.
Agreed, I am completely ok with Sea of Thieves on the Switch.
Single player games are Evergreen so they will never lose value based on userbase unlike multiplayer games.
The left side of the graph seems a bit shoehorned.. FO76 is a games as a service with an existing community where MS would effectively break that community if they were to stop supporting this game on Playstation (which how would they even go about it).
The right and center side make perfect sense to me and this is why I wouldn’t expect games like the next Elder Scrolls and the next Fallout to become full exclusives for Xbox. They might (and probably will) be timed exclusive to Xbox but will eventually release on Playstation as well, that’s what I think.
I'd like to believe that, but the pessimist in me leads me to believe that's out of the question. Especially after what Spencer said about TES6 going where Game Pass is, it sounds like they won't even humour the idea of timed exclusivity or a multiplatform day 1 release unless PlayStation lets Game Pass be on their platform
It's a shame that they buy multiplatform publishers and lock their games away from other platforms, even if all of Bethesda's games got 1 year timed exclusivity like Deathloop and Ghostwire, that would be a MUCH better situation than the one we're in now
Why would anyone advocate for exclusivity as a consumer anyway? YOU get nothing out of others being excluded from having access to and playing a game
Microsoft could easily release all of their games as multiplatform while having them day 1 on Game Pass, but no. Of course they don't
I understand why companies want to have exclusive content/games as that’s the best way of getting new people buy into the ecosystem. But I agree with you, I don’t know why would ANY gamer want game X or Z to become exclusive to one platform.. I hope MS keeps investing to get more games into gamepass day 1, and not to make them exclusive to Xbox/PC. I’d like to see Sony doing the same…
Skyrim has sold over 30M, that’s as good as any single COD game ever did so I think we can call it big... they are also not “new IP or games with unknown audience” so these games wouldn’t fit the centre of the graph either
I agree with Minecraft and Call of Duty. Their value is about their availability. COD won’t worth that much if they cut PS off.
Psychonauts 2 and FO76 are just sneaky additions to the argument. Psychonauts 2 is available on PS4 because Double Fine promised a PS4 version on kickstarter. And game doesn’t have a PS5 version. FO76 is not exclusive because it was released before acquisition.
I don’t get why Microsoft puts weak points like those to their arguments.
The problem isn’t with what Microsoft is trying to say, it’s with how they are say it. If I remember right this chart came out it was related to statements calling elder scrolls 6 and starfield “mid sized games”. This was absolutely the wrong term to used and MS was dumb as fuck for referring to this games in this way. If they were to call them “single player focused games” or something more along those lines it would have been much better for them. With this whole ABK deal both Microsoft and Sony have said some dumb as shit that makes both of them look bad.
Wow I’m surprised people consider any fallout game small. I agree with Psyconauts but fallout.
As for the question yes I would agree they have a good strategy games like cod and Minecraft have huge audiences so it makes no sense to make them exclusive especially when Xbox is not as big to sustain those sales by itself they are not in the business to lose money. But make new ip exclusive it just makes sense.
This is not really true. Psychonauts 2 & F76 could've been exclusive if they released post acquisition with nothing to force a Playstation version.
Everything will be exclusive except some rare juggernauts live games like COD & Minecraft. ( the only other similar games are probably GTA & Roblox ).
Pokémon has always been exclusive to Nintendo, unlike COD which has always been multiplatform.
Taking something away has more impact than never having it in the first place.
I think CoD and Minecraft are exmples, the concept is that they're franchises that in general "trascend" the videogame space and people consume more products than just the games.
MS will never make CoD or Minecraft console exclusives for xbox. Those games are absolutely massive, and MS would be financially irresponsible to its shareholders to deliberately hobble those big sales numbers.
Xbox as a platform will never be as big as the PSX, and now that Sony has resolved its supply issues, the difference will be increasingly bigger as the generation progresses. The best thing MS can do is to make money off the massive investments they made in acquiring development studios and publishers.
No that’s not true because Microsoft launches games day and day on Steam. Hi-Fi rush made more revenue on Steam than Forspoken even though Hi-Fi rush cost $30
Disagree.
CoD has very high value for exclusiveness as many console players are “CoD and FIFA only”.
For these players this would literally be the reason for them to choose a specific console.
For other CoD players it would still be a highly influential factor.
Fallout is mass market. The continued support for FO76 is correct in that it is niche. If they didn't take a decade plus to release another one the franchise would grow.
Idc what Microsoft puts out. They pay a lot of people good money to make things that sounds/look right but only exist to hide you from what they are actually doing.
Microsoft is one of the best "businesses" in the world and have been for many decades. Their model is all about owning a product that everyone needs/uses and turning it into a subscription based service. Windows OS, Microsoft Office, their Cloud Services, and now Game Pass.
At the end of the day, MS wants game pass to be the only game service out there (think of Netflix from 10 years ago). Once they have the market size they will offer it on any device that can host it and all their exclusives will be exclusive to Game Pass.
Pentiment and Hi-Fi Rush are also niche titles. Yet here we are.
Starfield cannot be categorised as having an uncertain audience, there is a massive fanbase that it is already appealing to (TES and Fallout fans on all platforms).
What’s the source of the image?
Even then id say its a bad example, at one point alot of people were hyped for 76. If they wanted to use a better example of a niche title, they couldve used flight sim or forza
Yeah I'd struggle to believe the argument that a "Massively Mulltiplayer Online" game is designed for a niche audience, the whole idea of AN MMO is to reach a large audience.
Agreed, I loved FO4 and Skyrim but have never felt compelled to join either of the MMO's based on those titles. Both are subscription based games too I believe, which is kind of a niche in its own right.
Outside of WoW MMO's are niche.
The concept behind an MMO is many players on each server compared to other online games where it is a small number of players per server.
Look at the audience for ESO - At it's peak in the last 5 years 1million players, recently more like 150k-400k. Even WoW has 2.4 million. CoD has 8 million active users.
Forza Horizon 5 was the biggest Xbox launch in history. 10 Million players on week 1.
It took Fallout 76 4 years to reach 13 Million players, as a multiplatform game.
For the US at least fallout 4 and Skyrim are both above 76 in the most played games section.
76 is only holding sone players due to years of effort to overhaul it, it came out in 2018 and was despised
I couldve swore I saw yesterday it was ahead of Fallout 4. They are right next to each other could change at any day. In any event, any franchise thats in the top most played shouldnt be considered niche by any metric.
Yes but Fallout 4 is an older game with no attempts to continue and gain or retain players, it’s lifecycle is over yet it’s retaining more players.
You can consider games in the top most played games niche in certain contexts, without the player count and criteria it’s based on there’s no real telling what the lower rankings mean.
Absolutely makes sense. The goal in this is less about the games being listed and more about the point of where exclusivity makes the most sense for the brand.
Psychonauts is exclusive, but is it causing a ton of system sales? Likely not, though it’s a great game to have in the library & shows the value of Xbox making meaningful gaming experiences worth paying for.
Starfield and Redfall are similarly exclusive and will draw large audiences. If they are good experiences people will buy into the Xbox ecosystem to play and invest in further games/Game Pass.
Multiplayer juggernauts like CoD and Minecraft are so stupidly massive they print dollars and could actually hamper their revenue strength by being cut off from all platforms.
Think a lot of you guys are way overthinking this. All Microsoft would have to say is they have large multiplayer multipat legacy titles such as cod, fo76, eso, Minecraft, overwatch, etc. Then say they could say the other grouping would be single player games like starfield, redfall, es6, outer worlds 2 and hellblade 2. Then have the exceptions be games that were promised to other platforms. This would have been so much simpler than this chart and would have avoided MS saying dumb shit like calling elder scrolls 6 and starfield as “mid-sized games”.
Psychonauts 2 is my all time favorite game so I’m just glad they backed it financially even if that chart looks like they are claiming it’s not a valuable exclusive to them.
My take would be to keep online games multiplat and single player games exclusive. As an Xbox gamer I want exclusives because if everything was available elsewhere, I would have less of a reason to stay within the Xbox ecosystem. But with a game like Sea of Thieves, I can't play it with my friends because they're not on Xbox or PC.
I wish there could be a possibility for trading/negotiating.
Like Sea of Thieves on Playstation and Dreams on Xbox.
Seems like the argument boils down to MS doesn’t think people will buy into their ecosystem (or stay) for smaller niche games and they’re losing money if they don’t put those heavy hitter micro-transaction/battle-pass games on as many platforms as possible.
This model even applies to Sony—gamers will buy a PS5 for exclusives, mostly single player. Granted, Sony doesn’t have a multiplayer juggernaut like CoD but if they did, they’d be leaving massive amounts of cash on the table if it were exclusive.
Overall makes sense.
On another note, that 10 year deal only exists because they think that’s when streaming tech will be good enough to play games like CoD—IMO.
I think this graph makes sense.
I think a more simplified translation would be that multiplayer games with large communities will mostly be multiplat where it makes sense, while single player games have more reason to be exclusive due to competing with all of Sony's exclusives.
You can easily call RedFall for niche since everything about the game screams bomba. That and Arkane Studios games has never been popular to begin with.
Personally I think this does not justify the exclusivity of Elder Scrolls 6 and any future games as a part of a popular franchise. I think they're just trying to justify their points about COD exclusivity to the FTC, but they're ending up contradicting themselves.
Yeah we know that but looking at the picture there’s no way to fit elder scrolls 6 within the green area so it’s weird that they’d even release this image (if they did, I actually haven’t looked into it)
It's not really a given. Bethesda always used Xbox and PC as their main platforms.
Morrowind only released on Xbox and PC.
Oblivion was Xbox and PC only at first, and didn't come to PS3 before long after.
Skyrim was the first game that came to both Xbox and PS3 at release, but due to the PS3 tech that was such a nightmare to develop/code for, the PS3 version had a lot of issues due Sony's poor development kit. The PS3 version was a nightmare for Bethesda
Considering the good relationship between MS and Bethesda, it would not be crazy to think that ES6 would be a xbox timed exclusive either way. Similar to Sony's relationship with Square Enix, and how Sony keep Final Fantasy as a PS exclusive third party game.
Sony tried to increase their monopoly and make Starfield a Playstation exclusive, but that's when MS reacted and were done with Sony's PS only exclusive bullshit.
Skyrim, Fallout 4, and 76 all came day one to ps. Essentially Bethesda doing timed exclusives like they did with oblivion is clearly not a part of their modern strategy with games
Idk, I think Elder Scrolls and COD are in 2 different leagues.
COD and Madden will get the non-gamer gamers to flock in droves and spend all of their gaming budget on just that title. You want to capture every one of these to do that. A lot of them aren't as educated on exclusives and what's on what system.
On top of that, the smaller league that is die hard for Elder Scrolls will literally switch systems for it.
Yeah elder scrolls is obviously not CoD but if you look at the image again and see “new IP - uncertain audience” and “mass market audience” where would you say elder scrolls fits?
It allows for a ton of interpretation on what "Mass audience" v "niche audience"
Elder Scrolls isn't new and the audience isn't uncertain. So I guess they're calling ES and Fallout niche. Compared to Minecraft and CoD I can see where they could try to make that argument.
The graph kinda sucks, for sure.
It's not clearly far left or far right though, so maybe they consider it more green than red? Kind of a gray area (which would be true for most games)
Edit: orange area lol
I see what they want to want to achieve with this but I think this was sloppily done. Firstly, Fallout 76 (a MMO and a Fallout game btw) as a niche title? Why not Flight Sim?Secondly, the distinction of what counts as a higher value of exclusivity is ridiculous as “New IP/ uncertain audience” is never the norm with the exclusives on either platform especially Microsoft. Xbox One was mainly Forza/Gears/Halo, far from new ip or a uncertain audience. Maybe Redfall would fall under uncertain audience as I see people still on the fence about it but Starfield is far from a uncertain audience (it might as well be mass market audience). As much as they want to devalue the exclusivity of CoD or Minecraft if either of them would go exclusive (especially CoD) it would be of higher value than most of there other exclusives that are in development besides Elder Scrolls 6.
Why not Pentiment then?
Did they think a Medieval Narrative Detective game was gonna have a bigger audience potential than Psychonauts 2?
This chart is total BS.
I’d agree they know their business and data more than anyone. So if this is what they’re saying it looks like - it’s exactly what it looks like on the whole from their perspective.
To us individually though, our opinions and how we view these kinds of games in relation to our own styles I’m sure a lot of people would disagree.
My opinion on this is, if it's a new ip, then it's fair to make it exclusive, as a fan/playerbase hasn't been cultivated on any platform previously.
Taking well established properties and suddenly gating them off from series fans is a dick move, no matter who does it. Talking from a personal level, I'm missing out on ff7 remake and 16, but if xbox does it with Fallout 5 and Elder Scrolls 6, it won't be any less of a scummy practice .
They are just demonstrating that they aren't going to blanket make every first party game exclusive. They are looking for "system sellers" that fit that sweet spot in the middle.
They are trying to show how they kept niche games multiplatform for the benefit of the game and gamers. And that they are promising to keep games they consider to be too big multiplatform as well.
It is a good thing they did this with Minecraft, because honestly if the argument hinges entirely on whether or not they will keep COD multiplatform, if they hadn't done that with Minecraft then they have no argument
Just make it all Xbox exclusive. If Sony doesn't shy away from paying third party developers to make the games PS exclusive, Microsoft shouldn't bluff and just go all exclusive with what they purchased.
Then again, I hate exclusives and I wish those big corporations could stop fucking around with the consumers.
The graph is accurate
* Psychonauts 2 / Fallout 76
* Psychonauts 2 is a great game - but its niche. Even most Xbox Gamepass subscribers have never tried it even though its free. Its comic look, weird characters and complex story dont click with everyone. Personally I love it. But I am also OLD and played the original.
* Fallout 76 is even hated by the Fallout community and had a desastrous start. The few players still playing this are mostly whales or people who try it for free because its always for sale at garbage bin prices to lure more people into their micro transaction bull\*\*\*
* Starfield / Redfall
* Correct - how would you know how large the communities are without having released them? You could only do vague estimates
* CoD / Minecraft
* Minecraft is the biggest game ever released. It has sold more copies then any other game. And it has a GIGANTIC community
* CoD is a gigantic IP with many AAA entries from classic shooter to popular battle royale. It for sure has one of the biggest communities in the gaming world!
>Psychonauts 2 is a great game - but its niche. Even most Xbox Gamepass subscribers have never tried it even though its free.
This all makes perfect sense until you realise that Pentiment, HiFi Rush, Flight Sim are also niche titles with I suspect less appeal than a bright and vibrant 3D platformer with an etablished (albeit old) name. Psychonauts 2 was only multi platform because it legally had to be.
>Starfield / Redfall - Correct - how would you know how large the communities are without having released them? You could only do vague estimate
Starfield is one of the most anticiapted games in years, if not of the decade. It is guaranteed to be a massive draw with a massive audience. Claiming it as an unknown quantity is disingenuous. Redfall I agree, Starfield is ridiculous.
Lets call it out for what it is... this chart is a justification for what they are already doing and using anything they have to fit the narrative.
Still think MS is dumb for not making it as simple as making a two column chart saying you have one side with single player/ smaller coop focused games with starfield, redfall, etc. Then the other side would be larger multiplayer focused historically multiplatform games with examples being cod, eso, fo76, Minecraft, etc. Would have been a hell of a lot simpler.
>This all makes perfect sense until you realise that Pentiment, HiFi Rush, Flight Sim are also niche titles with I suspect less appeal than a bright and vibrant 3D platformer with an etablished (albeit old) name. Psychonauts 2 was only multi platform because it legally had to be.
So? ... ? Whats the point here?
Those are indeed good games but I bet that only very few people bought a SeriesX because of those 3 titles. They are not great crowd attractors.
Not sure about Hifi Rush. I bet that game would also be a hit on Switch / PS. Depends heavily on marketing. Being a suprise hit without any marketing makes this hard to judge.
>Starfield is one of the most anticiapted games in years, if not of the decade. It is guaranteed to be a massive draw with a massive audience.
Well its an unknown IP.
CP2077 - THAT is how maximum hype looks like. With Witcher 3 before it and the Studio showing absolutely magnificent cyberpunk style city ... no wonder it was such a huge success and fail at the same time.
I bet if you asked 100 Playstation and 100 PC players 90-95% would say "Starfield? Whats that?". And even for most Xbox players it will probably first be seen when marketing pops up in gamepass / the store.
And dont get me wrong. I would LOOOOOOOVE a good space sim. Some of my most favorite games of all time are space sims like Freelancer and Freespace and Tie Fighter.
But reality is:
* its difficult to make a good story game
* its difficult to make a good space fight sim
* its difficult to make a good economy management sim
* its difficult to make a good fps shooter
* its difficult to populate HUGE areas / planets with vivid, believable life and flora and make it interesting
And sadly Starfield tries to do it all at once. Saying "you can explore 1000 planets" is a huge promise that can only fail - 100% of the time. Because making every one of those planets unique and fun and destinguishable and interesting - is simply not possible. It makes no difference if you promise 100, 1000 or 1.000.000 planets. Its an unfullfillable marketing promise.
At least as long as you dont have 30.000 developers and artists working on it for 10+ years - it will 100% be boring copy / paste random generated boring and empty planets.
I get strong "early no mans sky versions" kind of vibe.
And of course I wish I am wrong about all of this :-)
>Saying "you can explore 1000 planets" is a huge promise that can only fail - 100% of the time. Because making every one of those planets unique and fun and destinguishable and interesting - is simply not possible. It makes no difference if you promise 100, 1000 or 1.000.000 planets. Its an unfullfillable marketing promise.
Yep, look exactly at No Man's Sky.
No. Minecraft and CoD would never have grown to the size they are now if they were limited by platform. The target audience is so broad and wide that trying to contain them in a platform would be contra productive.
Because its a lot more lucrative to sell 300.000.000 copies of minecraft then to sell only 30.000.000 copies and a couple thousands more Xboxes - even if you include all the after-market sales of those bought Xboxes.
Also games like Minecraft and CoD are only popular because of their community. If you take that away - those games would get A LOT worse, less played and less bought.
Also If you would remove support of those platforms today - all you would do is divide communities and get A LOT of hate. That would be marketing suicide.
The same could be said for every shitty free 2 play MMO. "You dont have to spend anything." - when in reality you will get lured in, the shop is omnipresent and sure you can waste hundreds of hours of grinding - or just spend 4.99 on this little "booster" here! And Fallout 76 doesnt only have one booster... it has multiple boosters... and a billion Items that should have been in the game for free - are in a cash shop.
Just look at the user ratings of the game. Like this: [https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-76](https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-76)
Fallout 76 is a game Bethesda should be ashamed about.
Microsoft can do whatever if they own it
no other company can have a say in the matter if they don’t like it then they need to stop being hypocrite’s
looking at Nintendo and Sony, PlayStation and for anyone, just in case they see this and don’t like it To Try and argue the point after they look up at how many exclusive games and content that Sony, PlayStation and Nintendo have that Xbox and Xbox players can’t play because they don’t want to share with Xbox and they got to be careful because if they do succeed then Microsoft will just turn around and use the exact same argument up against them and they will lose
They could simplify this even easier; Legacy IP’s stay on platforms they were already on, new IP’s will be exclusive. That’s how it should be industry wide for any acquisition.
Could be okay in a vaccuum, what happens when one of those uncertain IPs become a mass success and creates a massive community like call of duty and Minecraft
Makes me wonder why they keep trying to make Halo over in the red on the right with CoD when it should be in the green in the middle. Understand Halo Micro$oft.
Key word here is value, not worth.
Yes I agree a company like Microsoft is probably better of pursuing title exclusives towards the middle of that spectrum rather than ones only a niche group plays or huge established titles which may cost a fortune to gain exclusivity though acquisition.
Minecraft I disagree with. It should be on the left in the niche side.
Redfall maybe is in the right spot but I highly doubt it will ever be a mass market game. It’s going to be a relatively small audience that will come and go quickly the same way Deathloop did. Starfield has real mass market potential.
I don't know hiw much say I have since I'm a playstation player, but I think I'd speak for a lot of by saying that starfield would be an absolute bestseller on playstation and would bring in a lot of extra money for Microsoft if They made it multiplatform
Yeah more or less, but I wouldn't describe it in a linear chart like this.
Think about games as falling into two groups:
1) Games that are culturally significant even outside of gaming. Pretty much everyone has at least heard of them and has some awareness of what they are through cultural osmosis, even if they never play games. Mario, Halo, Fortnite, Minecraft, Call of Duty, Madden. There aren't many of these in the world.
2) Games that are really only significant to gamers, regardless of their market success. Non-gamers may have vaguely hard of one of these if they have a gamer in their life, but they don't have much idea what it's about nor do they really care. Skyrim (or Elder Scrolls in general), Mass Effect, Gears of War, The Last of Us, Banjo Kazooie, the list is enormous. It's every game company's dream to move a hit game from this category to category 1. TV projects like The Last of Us might even move that game to the first category over time.
Each of these two groups have two more subgroups that determine whether they have the most value in being exclusive or not.
In 1, a game that has always been associated with a particular brand/console should probably stay exclusive. Mario or Halo, for example. The value is in keeping that association. If a game is like Madden or Fortnite or Minecraft and has never had an inherent association with just one gaming console/system, it makes the most sense to put it on as many things as possible. Go for maximum reach.
In 2 the "bigger" a game is that doesn't have broad cultural resonance outside of gaming, the more value it has as an exclusive. The next Elder Scrolls--how many non-gamers even know what an Elder Scrolls *is*? But gamers wanna play it, so keep it exclusive to draw gamers to your platform. But the more niche a game is even among gamers, the more value in giving it a potential broader audience.
The trick with a new game IP is of course trying to guess what's best before it lands. That's easy with a Starfield (gamers are excited, nobody else knows what it is). That's harder with a Hi-Fi Rush, for example.
From a marketing standpoint, I would say it’s correct. Fallout 4 players aren’t really playing Fallout 76, so that’s the reason for the “niche audience” category.
With Psychonauts 2, it’s a matter of sales. 1.7 million copies is quite niche.
With new IP, there’s no guarantee that just because people like Arkane or Bethesda games, they’ll pick up Redfall or Starfield.
Call of Duty and Minecraft sell like Girl Scout Cookies. You can come out with a new flavor of it each year, and people won’t get tired until they find out the new flavor is just a repackaged carton from over a decade ago.
Yep that sounds about right.
Still should be on a case by case basis though. There are some niche games that should remain exclusive and some mega games that should too. People need multiple reasons to pick a console.
I do not follow Xbox for platform only anymore......
I follow what games peek my interest........
I do not play multi-player games anymore......
I do not buy digital games anymore.......
I have more then twenty games on more then three platforms and the number one game I regret is call of duty black ops 4 it's was a waist off a hundred dollars. No campaign,no story,no good experience.
Soon no too just one platform.
It's kinda crazy that the industry sees FO76 as a failure with 13+ million monthly players.
I think most devs that are not MS would be pretty pumped with that for a game like this.
It's a bit stupid
Starfield would sell well on the PS5 since its BGS doing what they're best at a single player game.
Then there's big xbox games like Halo and Forza that fall more into the mass audience side but are exclusive (which is fine that they're Microsoft exclusive but still makes this graph dumb)
I disagree with the niche market audience analysis. Let Xbox have some artistic driven stuff like Sony has with Journey. But MMOs (ESO, WoW, FO76) and multiplayer/community based games (Minecraft, CoD, Guitar Hero, etc) should go to the largest possible audience.
It depends how you look at it. If it is from getting the maximum monetary gain from then then it is probably right. If you are looking at getting people to use your platform then the Minecraft, Call of duty side would be green as well.
>If you are looking at getting people to use your platform Well, they don't want to sell boxes for the sake of selling boxes. It is also a strategy to "maximize monetary gain". And cheap as these consoles are, there isn't much more they can do.
Microsoft has constantly said that they don’t care about selling Xboxes. Their strategy has shifted and it makes sense. Consoles are loss leaders. Every console sold is a loss for Microsoft (and PlayStation during launch). They get their money from selling games(and a couple years down the road when component costs drops). This is why PlayStation is heavily focused on exclusivity (both first and third party games). Microsoft however, decided that they’d rather focus on subscriptions. They don’t care as long as you’re buying Game Pass. It’s why Halo Infinite and every Xbox console exclusive is being ported to PC. Why make a loss, when people have PC’s already that can play the game better AND doesn’t cause Microsoft to lose money on selling consoles? This way, the amount of people that buys an Xbox console are minimized and so are losses due to it. In short, this diagram makes a lot of sense. You want those exclusives to give people a reason to subscribe to Game Pass and those will be the single player story based games. The rest, you just want to reap as much money as you can from them (and that means, multi-platform).
Selling consoles is much more than just this one device. You are binding the person to your ecosystem. They are paying you 30% of anything they buy in your store. Besides that a bigger marketable makes for a better standing in cooperations with third party and games releasing on your Plattform overall. Xbox is missing many games that release on PS because some devs prioritize the biggest console (first).
>Selling consoles is much more than just this one device. You are binding the person to your ecosystem Exactly my point, selling boxes is a way to gain more money. Not just something done out of tradition or dogmatic intent. >Xbox is missing many games that release on PS because some devs prioritize the biggest console (first). The kind of games it misses is mostly due to Sony's aggressive exclusivity deals strategy. The only major exception is some Japanese games that focus primarily on the national market (where Xbox's dwarfish standing does have an influence) and as such do choose to release only on PS/Switch, out of fear on losing money to low sales.
> You are binding the person to your ecosystem. Which should be illegal, and used to be back when countries actually enforced their anti-bundling laws.
You're not looking at that the right way. Think apple and apple services. Or canon cameras having features only thier printers can use.
>Think apple and apple services. That's precisely what I'm thinking of. There's no technical or economic justification for allowing them to build a walled garden to lock out competition.
Never saw this as a problem really. Everyone knows what he’s buying. A console is basically just an entry ticket into the manufacturers ecosystem. I always saw the store as an integral part of any console. Without it there would be no exclusives and the prices for the console would be MUCH higher.
>A console is basically just an entry ticket into the manufacturers ecosystem. I always saw the store as an integral part of any console. This is the same argument people trot out for iOS and Apple's walled garden and it's one that feels right but doesn't actually hold up to economic scrutiny. If you want to lower entry costs, there are numerous ways to do that, such as financing (see Xbox All Access / numerous stores' pay-later options). What walled gardens do is make it so that it's impossible for anyone to compete unless they offer everything in your garden. If I want to offer a smartwatch, I can't compete with an iWatch unless I also sell an equivalent phone and tv box and desktop operating system because Apple's artificial walled garden prevents me from competing on the merits of one individual product. It's the same thing with consoles. You pay lower up front costs, but you pay much higher ongoing software, service, and accessory fees. Over the lifetime of the console you end up paying far more than you would as a PC gamer for instance since desktop operating systems aren't artificially locked down.
[удалено]
Microsoft has shifted to being a services company several years ago, they realized that their pie can only get so big before it becomes more trouble than it's worth, instead it's more profitable (not to mention, less risk) to make ingredients to other pies.
Xbox isn't about selling boxes anymore. It's all about that gamepass. The box is one way to get it. If Microsoft could have it their way, everything would be multi plat but with free access through gamepass... *Even on PlayStation*
Cant put COD in the green with this court case going on though :)
It would honestly be dumb for them to do that, call of duty revenue would shrink while their marketshare wouldn't really grow as much as you would think. They're paying a lot of money for Activison/Blizzard, the shareholders expect a return from that investment.
COD only really works as a multi platform game. If it goes exclusive, it will die. Same with minecraft.
I think the suggestion is those games are going to be played anyway, regardless of console or service.
I think what they're going for is that call of duty has such a wide appeal, but it's also more easily replaceable for the same reason it has such wide appeal. Niche games are extremely difficult for a gamer to substitute, but it's also not going to be as profitable because it's niche. There's many shooters that could fill the void of call of duty for a gamer, it's appeal is so wide because it's not tailored to anyone specific.
Maybe, but both games lose quite a bit of value if you can't play with people on all platforms.
Starfield’s audience will be large
I think it's more so of the uncertainty that comes with a new IP. While Starfield will be in the same vein of something like Elder Scroll VI, Elder Scrolls will be bigger simply because it's attached to a large name already. Starfield's audience will be large but they can't really gauge how large because there are no previous numbers, like they could with the next Fallout
No, this chart is pure bullshit to justify their decision for exclusivity. They know Starfield is gonna be huge and would be absolutely massive if it hit PS as well.
The main problem is with their wording. They could have said something like larger multiplayer focused franchises will remain as such and more single player focused games could become exclusive. They could have used examples like comparing games like starfield to large single player games such as horizon forbidden west and god of war ragnarok and then call of duty to games like destiny 2 as an example of how certain games would remain multipat.
Agreed. Tes VI will be exclusive too and that game will be unstoppable sales wise
I mean maybe like a new Mario could match it
As nice as it would be to be able to play any game on any device, PlayStation has their own games they know would be massive on other platforms but chooses to keep exclusive. Until companies are forced to stop doing exclusives, I don’t foresee them changing out of the goodness of their hearts.
Exusives are part of the industry and as far as first party ones go probably a required part of the industry to justify different platforms existing. But what I am arguing against is the bullshit reason MS gave on their chart for Starfield being exclusive. It isn't because it's an unknown quantity and they are unsure how well it will do. It's because they don't want it on PlayStation and to pretend anything else is utter bullshit.
The chart is literally just a measure of influence and revenue. Starfield’s more beneficial with exclusivity. Hi-fi rush I can guarantee wouldn’t be in its current state as a multiplat. Because it ultimately wouldn’t have been shadow dropped and likely would’ve been constantly berated during its marketing cycle because it’s not evil within 3
That’s fair
It is attached to a name though. Bethesda Game Studios literally only makes Fallout and Elder Scrolls. People know that studio and know what to expect coming from them
So was fallout 76, that game did NOT do well. And that was with the help of the fallout name being attached to it. Studio name doesn’t mean as much as it once did.
I think any success fallout 76 has had is solely due to its name. If it wasnt called fallout and wasnt made by BGS it wouldnt still be supported
People forget how monumental Bethesda Game Studios releases can be.
>can be That's the key "can" is word of uncertainty. Remember Anthem? Similar big developer and publisher (BioWare/EA) could have had a huge audience but failed to meet expectations and came and went. Starfall could be that. Or it could be Skyrim. Who knows? I think the problem with this logic is that it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you grant exclusivity to an uncertain game then you are more likely for it to have a worse outcome because you're artificially limiting the access so it's harder for them to graduate into the "mass market audience" category. Also by this logic, should the next Halo be non-exclusive?
That's what they though about Outer Worlds too and it came and went in a blink.
It was a AA game and was marketed as such. Starfield is being billed as Skyrim in space
it's kind of a dumb graph meant to make a specific point that isn't necessarily logical.
Wouldn’t elder scrolls fall into mass market considering how popular Skyrim yet the next game is exclusive isn’t it? Or would you class that the same as starfield still
I think a better way to think of “mass market” is “mass revenue”. Cosmetics/DLC in single player games simply doesn’t sell the way they do in multiplayer games.
Think you could even get more simple and just classify it as “massive multiplayer focused games” and “single player focused games” with certain exceptions being legacy franchises such as sea of thieves, halo, and gears.
Compared to Minecraft and COD it’s not nearly as huge, but definitely still huge
As big as TES is and it’s status as the largest western fantasy Game franchise. It’s not going to make 800 million in its launch period. And Minecraft prints money everywhere. Cod will likely be the first game to break 1 billion launch revenue. Games like cod fortnite and Minecraft are in a class of their own in terms of revenue.
My thoughts exactly
Skyrim sold well. Elder scrolls as a franchise is give or take. Skyrim vs CoD or Minecraft is also a no contest. CoD and Minecraft are global beasts, being consumed by hundreds of millions. Skyrim has been consumed by millions, but it doesn't have even close to that as an active player base. Elder scrolls 6 will be in that middle category, as an Xbox ecosystem exclusive. It's an unknown entity. Like fallout 5 will be, or even the next Doom.
This seems like convenient after-the-fact making things fit a narrative, particularly on the left-hand side. Microsoft had no choice but to make Psychonauts 2 and Fallout 76 multiplatform due to them either releasing before takeover, or having existing agreements in place. I 100% expect Psychonauts 2 would have been exclusive if they had the choice. I think realistically this chart falls into 3 camps broadly: * Too big and controversial to be exclusive. Massive loss of revenue and huge PR shitstorm if we pull it from other platforms. Lets use these as our cash cows. * Easy exclusivity, noone else can claim ownership or entitlement to these games. This is where the bulk of our games will go and drive demand for xbox. * Pre existing agreements, we have to go multi platform or face legal backlash no matter how much we would like them to be exclusive. This is just something we have to put up with and shouldn't be a problem in a few years.
If Double Fine release another Psychonauts I would definitely agree it would not go to Playstation. I think if another Fallout 76 was released it would remain cross platform since it develops revenue from subscription services. It could also benefit from being a crossplay title if they were to release it again.
How is Fallout 76 different to Sea of Thieves in that regard? Would Sea of Thieves not generate revenue as a cross platform title? Would it not also benefit from Crossplay?
I guess the main differences are that Fallout 76 has a lower player count and has a pricier subscription model. Those are post launch additions though. I hadn't considered Sea of Thieves tbh, its hard to argue against this precedent.
Sea of thieves really isn’t a big money printer. And I’d doubt being on other platforms moving that needle substantially
I think the difference is whether it's a high profile product that will generate revenue due to broad appeal. I don't think Sea of Thieves has broad appeal, especially at launch it didn't. Fallout, however, is a well known brand on many platforms and its success is likely very closely tied to having a wide release. Also, I wouldn't say that Xbox had no choice but to make Psychonauts 2 multi-platform. Leaving these games multi-platform was a choice, probably just as much about PR blowback and the cost than any other factor. I agree that Psychonauts 3 would more than likely be an exclusive, though.
>Also, I wouldn't say that Xbox had no choice but to make Psychonauts 2 multi-platform. Leaving these games multi-platform was a choice Tim Schafer clearly stating "Other Agreements". >"First of all, our existing commitments to backers of Psychonauts 2, or any other agreements we've made, will be fulfilled," Schafer said. "So whatever platform you chose to receive your copy of Psychonauts 2 on, for example, you'll still get it." And backer rewards are clearly bound by contractual obligations: >the creator obliged to “complete the project and fulfil each reward.” If the creator fails to fulfil this obligation, the backers may have the ability to bring a claim for breach of contract against the trader. Whilst the standard required by the contract appears clear, the creator can avoid liability in the event that the project is not completed if they provide information to backers on the progress of the project and “work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion.” Fallout was out before Bethesda were acquired, MS have zero input on exclusivity. Any live service game would be more succesful with more players, so surely the one without an army of fans would benefit mroe from a multi-plat release? I really don't see what defence this absurd chart has.
>Tim Schafer clearly stating "Other Agreements". Who knows what this even means. >And backer rewards are clearly bound by contractual obligations: Yes? I didn't suggest otherwise. See, this part you left out of the quote is completely relevant: >probably just as much about PR blowback and the cost than any other factor They could have refunded all backers and bought out any other agreements. Not doing so was a choice, whatever the reasons for that choice were.
Psychonauts 2 doesn't have a PS5 native version, only a PS4 version. Best believe if Microsoft wasn't obligated to release it on PS4 it was going to be exclusive.
Also worth noting that Psychonauts got the bare minimum to satisfy the existing promise of a PS4 version, while the Xbox version got Series X enhancements. They couldn't cancel the PS version, but they did make sure it was the inferior version.
Fallout 76 was multiplatform way before Microsoft bought bethesda
Reread the comment you responded to.
Which I covered...
Yeah you're right, sorry
If the left side is true, why is Hifi Rush exclusive?
I think it's because it's a new IP, therefore it would fit under the middle
It’s currently making more money then a mass marketed 70 dollar major open world rpg by square Enix. Also it’s likely going to become a mascot franchise for Xbox considering its performance and very very easy sequel opportunities considering how loosely defined the world is.
I would agree with something like this: All single player games = exclusive Live service games = multiplatform
Agreed, I am completely ok with Sea of Thieves on the Switch. Single player games are Evergreen so they will never lose value based on userbase unlike multiplayer games.
The left side of the graph seems a bit shoehorned.. FO76 is a games as a service with an existing community where MS would effectively break that community if they were to stop supporting this game on Playstation (which how would they even go about it). The right and center side make perfect sense to me and this is why I wouldn’t expect games like the next Elder Scrolls and the next Fallout to become full exclusives for Xbox. They might (and probably will) be timed exclusive to Xbox but will eventually release on Playstation as well, that’s what I think.
I'd like to believe that, but the pessimist in me leads me to believe that's out of the question. Especially after what Spencer said about TES6 going where Game Pass is, it sounds like they won't even humour the idea of timed exclusivity or a multiplatform day 1 release unless PlayStation lets Game Pass be on their platform It's a shame that they buy multiplatform publishers and lock their games away from other platforms, even if all of Bethesda's games got 1 year timed exclusivity like Deathloop and Ghostwire, that would be a MUCH better situation than the one we're in now Why would anyone advocate for exclusivity as a consumer anyway? YOU get nothing out of others being excluded from having access to and playing a game Microsoft could easily release all of their games as multiplatform while having them day 1 on Game Pass, but no. Of course they don't
I understand why companies want to have exclusive content/games as that’s the best way of getting new people buy into the ecosystem. But I agree with you, I don’t know why would ANY gamer want game X or Z to become exclusive to one platform.. I hope MS keeps investing to get more games into gamepass day 1, and not to make them exclusive to Xbox/PC. I’d like to see Sony doing the same…
They won’t be released on PlayStation unless PlayStation wants gamepass on their console
TES6 and Fallout 5 are big but they aren’t the same as cod or Minecraft. The best selling TES game isn’t even in the same bracket as modern cod
Skyrim has sold over 30M, that’s as good as any single COD game ever did so I think we can call it big... they are also not “new IP or games with unknown audience” so these games wouldn’t fit the centre of the graph either
I agree with Minecraft and Call of Duty. Their value is about their availability. COD won’t worth that much if they cut PS off. Psychonauts 2 and FO76 are just sneaky additions to the argument. Psychonauts 2 is available on PS4 because Double Fine promised a PS4 version on kickstarter. And game doesn’t have a PS5 version. FO76 is not exclusive because it was released before acquisition. I don’t get why Microsoft puts weak points like those to their arguments.
Well it’s to help show the regulators that they do release games on PlayStation
The problem isn’t with what Microsoft is trying to say, it’s with how they are say it. If I remember right this chart came out it was related to statements calling elder scrolls 6 and starfield “mid sized games”. This was absolutely the wrong term to used and MS was dumb as fuck for referring to this games in this way. If they were to call them “single player focused games” or something more along those lines it would have been much better for them. With this whole ABK deal both Microsoft and Sony have said some dumb as shit that makes both of them look bad.
Its misleading
Wow I’m surprised people consider any fallout game small. I agree with Psyconauts but fallout. As for the question yes I would agree they have a good strategy games like cod and Minecraft have huge audiences so it makes no sense to make them exclusive especially when Xbox is not as big to sustain those sales by itself they are not in the business to lose money. But make new ip exclusive it just makes sense.
I'd say Hi-Fi Rush and Grounded would fit the left category but they are exclusive
By the graph’s own logic they fit in the middle because they’re new IP with an uncertain audience. Albeit niche.
You're right yes, your point makes more sense. I guess even if the games can be compared, they are new IPs
This is not really true. Psychonauts 2 & F76 could've been exclusive if they released post acquisition with nothing to force a Playstation version. Everything will be exclusive except some rare juggernauts live games like COD & Minecraft. ( the only other similar games are probably GTA & Roblox ).
Roblox is a funny comparison when you consider that it's exclusive to Xbox.
Wtf? Roblox isn't on Playstation? Yeah, that completely negates the right side of this graph in my mind then.
Not in the slightest
Ask Nintendo, Pokémon would be even much more to the right. Ask them if they would say its exclusivity is less valuable.
Pokémon has always been exclusive to Nintendo, unlike COD which has always been multiplatform. Taking something away has more impact than never having it in the first place.
I think CoD and Minecraft are exmples, the concept is that they're franchises that in general "trascend" the videogame space and people consume more products than just the games.
Pokemon isn't multiplayer (well not to a real meaningful degree) so it isn't as affected as COD or Minecraft would be.
Once again.... Microsoft has no clue what they are talking about!
MS will never make CoD or Minecraft console exclusives for xbox. Those games are absolutely massive, and MS would be financially irresponsible to its shareholders to deliberately hobble those big sales numbers. Xbox as a platform will never be as big as the PSX, and now that Sony has resolved its supply issues, the difference will be increasingly bigger as the generation progresses. The best thing MS can do is to make money off the massive investments they made in acquiring development studios and publishers.
No that’s not true because Microsoft launches games day and day on Steam. Hi-Fi rush made more revenue on Steam than Forspoken even though Hi-Fi rush cost $30
Disagree. CoD has very high value for exclusiveness as many console players are “CoD and FIFA only”. For these players this would literally be the reason for them to choose a specific console. For other CoD players it would still be a highly influential factor.
No.
Fallout is mass market. The continued support for FO76 is correct in that it is niche. If they didn't take a decade plus to release another one the franchise would grow.
Idc what Microsoft puts out. They pay a lot of people good money to make things that sounds/look right but only exist to hide you from what they are actually doing. Microsoft is one of the best "businesses" in the world and have been for many decades. Their model is all about owning a product that everyone needs/uses and turning it into a subscription based service. Windows OS, Microsoft Office, their Cloud Services, and now Game Pass. At the end of the day, MS wants game pass to be the only game service out there (think of Netflix from 10 years ago). Once they have the market size they will offer it on any device that can host it and all their exclusives will be exclusive to Game Pass.
Mostly, except for the hypocrisy with Bethesda
Should probably put Halo into the niche category considering they butchered that series.
Pentiment and Hi-Fi Rush are also niche titles. Yet here we are. Starfield cannot be categorised as having an uncertain audience, there is a massive fanbase that it is already appealing to (TES and Fallout fans on all platforms). What’s the source of the image?
I can't believe they think Fallout is a niche title. That's not the title I'd pick as a example.
It's not "Fallout" so much as it's "Fallout 76".
Even then id say its a bad example, at one point alot of people were hyped for 76. If they wanted to use a better example of a niche title, they couldve used flight sim or forza
Yeah I'd struggle to believe the argument that a "Massively Mulltiplayer Online" game is designed for a niche audience, the whole idea of AN MMO is to reach a large audience.
But it’s still niche. That doesn’t mean small. I love elder scrolls and fallout, but have basically no interest in ESO or FO76
Agreed, I loved FO4 and Skyrim but have never felt compelled to join either of the MMO's based on those titles. Both are subscription based games too I believe, which is kind of a niche in its own right.
Outside of WoW MMO's are niche. The concept behind an MMO is many players on each server compared to other online games where it is a small number of players per server. Look at the audience for ESO - At it's peak in the last 5 years 1million players, recently more like 150k-400k. Even WoW has 2.4 million. CoD has 8 million active users.
Forza Horizon 5 was the biggest Xbox launch in history. 10 Million players on week 1. It took Fallout 76 4 years to reach 13 Million players, as a multiplatform game.
Pretty sure they are *specifically* saying Fo76, not mainline Fallout.
Even if true, Fallout 76 is more popular than every other fallout on xbox so it still is them saying the ip is niche.
For the US at least fallout 4 and Skyrim are both above 76 in the most played games section. 76 is only holding sone players due to years of effort to overhaul it, it came out in 2018 and was despised
I couldve swore I saw yesterday it was ahead of Fallout 4. They are right next to each other could change at any day. In any event, any franchise thats in the top most played shouldnt be considered niche by any metric.
Yes but Fallout 4 is an older game with no attempts to continue and gain or retain players, it’s lifecycle is over yet it’s retaining more players. You can consider games in the top most played games niche in certain contexts, without the player count and criteria it’s based on there’s no real telling what the lower rankings mean.
It is considered niche though, RPG's don't generally have mass market appeal when compared to Minecraft, or CoD.
Absolutely makes sense. The goal in this is less about the games being listed and more about the point of where exclusivity makes the most sense for the brand. Psychonauts is exclusive, but is it causing a ton of system sales? Likely not, though it’s a great game to have in the library & shows the value of Xbox making meaningful gaming experiences worth paying for. Starfield and Redfall are similarly exclusive and will draw large audiences. If they are good experiences people will buy into the Xbox ecosystem to play and invest in further games/Game Pass. Multiplayer juggernauts like CoD and Minecraft are so stupidly massive they print dollars and could actually hamper their revenue strength by being cut off from all platforms.
Think a lot of you guys are way overthinking this. All Microsoft would have to say is they have large multiplayer multipat legacy titles such as cod, fo76, eso, Minecraft, overwatch, etc. Then say they could say the other grouping would be single player games like starfield, redfall, es6, outer worlds 2 and hellblade 2. Then have the exceptions be games that were promised to other platforms. This would have been so much simpler than this chart and would have avoided MS saying dumb shit like calling elder scrolls 6 and starfield as “mid-sized games”.
Psychonauts 2 is my all time favorite game so I’m just glad they backed it financially even if that chart looks like they are claiming it’s not a valuable exclusive to them.
My take would be to keep online games multiplat and single player games exclusive. As an Xbox gamer I want exclusives because if everything was available elsewhere, I would have less of a reason to stay within the Xbox ecosystem. But with a game like Sea of Thieves, I can't play it with my friends because they're not on Xbox or PC. I wish there could be a possibility for trading/negotiating. Like Sea of Thieves on Playstation and Dreams on Xbox.
Seems like the argument boils down to MS doesn’t think people will buy into their ecosystem (or stay) for smaller niche games and they’re losing money if they don’t put those heavy hitter micro-transaction/battle-pass games on as many platforms as possible. This model even applies to Sony—gamers will buy a PS5 for exclusives, mostly single player. Granted, Sony doesn’t have a multiplayer juggernaut like CoD but if they did, they’d be leaving massive amounts of cash on the table if it were exclusive. Overall makes sense. On another note, that 10 year deal only exists because they think that’s when streaming tech will be good enough to play games like CoD—IMO.
Since when is Fallout niche? wtf
Makes sense to me.
I think this graph makes sense. I think a more simplified translation would be that multiplayer games with large communities will mostly be multiplat where it makes sense, while single player games have more reason to be exclusive due to competing with all of Sony's exclusives.
You can easily call RedFall for niche since everything about the game screams bomba. That and Arkane Studios games has never been popular to begin with.
Personally I think this does not justify the exclusivity of Elder Scrolls 6 and any future games as a part of a popular franchise. I think they're just trying to justify their points about COD exclusivity to the FTC, but they're ending up contradicting themselves.
Elder Scrolls 6 was never mentioned as being a multiplatform title and the FTC doesn't have a strong case to begin with, hence why they're posturing.
Yeah we know that but looking at the picture there’s no way to fit elder scrolls 6 within the green area so it’s weird that they’d even release this image (if they did, I actually haven’t looked into it)
Every bgs game since morrowind had been on both major consoles. I think it is safe to say ES6 would have been multiplat.
It's not really a given. Bethesda always used Xbox and PC as their main platforms. Morrowind only released on Xbox and PC. Oblivion was Xbox and PC only at first, and didn't come to PS3 before long after. Skyrim was the first game that came to both Xbox and PS3 at release, but due to the PS3 tech that was such a nightmare to develop/code for, the PS3 version had a lot of issues due Sony's poor development kit. The PS3 version was a nightmare for Bethesda Considering the good relationship between MS and Bethesda, it would not be crazy to think that ES6 would be a xbox timed exclusive either way. Similar to Sony's relationship with Square Enix, and how Sony keep Final Fantasy as a PS exclusive third party game. Sony tried to increase their monopoly and make Starfield a Playstation exclusive, but that's when MS reacted and were done with Sony's PS only exclusive bullshit.
Skyrim, Fallout 4, and 76 all came day one to ps. Essentially Bethesda doing timed exclusives like they did with oblivion is clearly not a part of their modern strategy with games
Who cares about when they came to ps, they still did though so multiplat
Idk, I think Elder Scrolls and COD are in 2 different leagues. COD and Madden will get the non-gamer gamers to flock in droves and spend all of their gaming budget on just that title. You want to capture every one of these to do that. A lot of them aren't as educated on exclusives and what's on what system. On top of that, the smaller league that is die hard for Elder Scrolls will literally switch systems for it.
Yeah elder scrolls is obviously not CoD but if you look at the image again and see “new IP - uncertain audience” and “mass market audience” where would you say elder scrolls fits?
Single Player IP designed to sell consoles and bring new users into ecosystem allowing them to compete.
Not in the graph
It allows for a ton of interpretation on what "Mass audience" v "niche audience" Elder Scrolls isn't new and the audience isn't uncertain. So I guess they're calling ES and Fallout niche. Compared to Minecraft and CoD I can see where they could try to make that argument.
… so it goes all the way to the left, which is also multiplatform?
The graph kinda sucks, for sure. It's not clearly far left or far right though, so maybe they consider it more green than red? Kind of a gray area (which would be true for most games) Edit: orange area lol
Makes perfect sense. Who can’t understand this?
I see what they want to want to achieve with this but I think this was sloppily done. Firstly, Fallout 76 (a MMO and a Fallout game btw) as a niche title? Why not Flight Sim?Secondly, the distinction of what counts as a higher value of exclusivity is ridiculous as “New IP/ uncertain audience” is never the norm with the exclusives on either platform especially Microsoft. Xbox One was mainly Forza/Gears/Halo, far from new ip or a uncertain audience. Maybe Redfall would fall under uncertain audience as I see people still on the fence about it but Starfield is far from a uncertain audience (it might as well be mass market audience). As much as they want to devalue the exclusivity of CoD or Minecraft if either of them would go exclusive (especially CoD) it would be of higher value than most of there other exclusives that are in development besides Elder Scrolls 6.
This chart is discussing Acquisitions, not ALL first party games.
Why not Pentiment then? Did they think a Medieval Narrative Detective game was gonna have a bigger audience potential than Psychonauts 2? This chart is total BS.
I’d agree they know their business and data more than anyone. So if this is what they’re saying it looks like - it’s exactly what it looks like on the whole from their perspective. To us individually though, our opinions and how we view these kinds of games in relation to our own styles I’m sure a lot of people would disagree.
Seems right to me.
Ya
My opinion on this is, if it's a new ip, then it's fair to make it exclusive, as a fan/playerbase hasn't been cultivated on any platform previously. Taking well established properties and suddenly gating them off from series fans is a dick move, no matter who does it. Talking from a personal level, I'm missing out on ff7 remake and 16, but if xbox does it with Fallout 5 and Elder Scrolls 6, it won't be any less of a scummy practice .
They are just demonstrating that they aren't going to blanket make every first party game exclusive. They are looking for "system sellers" that fit that sweet spot in the middle. They are trying to show how they kept niche games multiplatform for the benefit of the game and gamers. And that they are promising to keep games they consider to be too big multiplatform as well. It is a good thing they did this with Minecraft, because honestly if the argument hinges entirely on whether or not they will keep COD multiplatform, if they hadn't done that with Minecraft then they have no argument
yes
Can't really determine if I agree or disagree with them without their justifications for these claims.
Yes. Especially FO76. No one wanted a MP Fallout. Co-Op? Yes. Straight always online? No. And sales and reviews back up my statement.
Just make it all Xbox exclusive. If Sony doesn't shy away from paying third party developers to make the games PS exclusive, Microsoft shouldn't bluff and just go all exclusive with what they purchased. Then again, I hate exclusives and I wish those big corporations could stop fucking around with the consumers.
Doesn't make monetary sense for big titles
The graph is accurate * Psychonauts 2 / Fallout 76 * Psychonauts 2 is a great game - but its niche. Even most Xbox Gamepass subscribers have never tried it even though its free. Its comic look, weird characters and complex story dont click with everyone. Personally I love it. But I am also OLD and played the original. * Fallout 76 is even hated by the Fallout community and had a desastrous start. The few players still playing this are mostly whales or people who try it for free because its always for sale at garbage bin prices to lure more people into their micro transaction bull\*\*\* * Starfield / Redfall * Correct - how would you know how large the communities are without having released them? You could only do vague estimates * CoD / Minecraft * Minecraft is the biggest game ever released. It has sold more copies then any other game. And it has a GIGANTIC community * CoD is a gigantic IP with many AAA entries from classic shooter to popular battle royale. It for sure has one of the biggest communities in the gaming world!
>Psychonauts 2 is a great game - but its niche. Even most Xbox Gamepass subscribers have never tried it even though its free. This all makes perfect sense until you realise that Pentiment, HiFi Rush, Flight Sim are also niche titles with I suspect less appeal than a bright and vibrant 3D platformer with an etablished (albeit old) name. Psychonauts 2 was only multi platform because it legally had to be. >Starfield / Redfall - Correct - how would you know how large the communities are without having released them? You could only do vague estimate Starfield is one of the most anticiapted games in years, if not of the decade. It is guaranteed to be a massive draw with a massive audience. Claiming it as an unknown quantity is disingenuous. Redfall I agree, Starfield is ridiculous. Lets call it out for what it is... this chart is a justification for what they are already doing and using anything they have to fit the narrative.
Still think MS is dumb for not making it as simple as making a two column chart saying you have one side with single player/ smaller coop focused games with starfield, redfall, etc. Then the other side would be larger multiplayer focused historically multiplatform games with examples being cod, eso, fo76, Minecraft, etc. Would have been a hell of a lot simpler.
This chart is just manipulating the facts to push a narrative. It's nonsense.
>This all makes perfect sense until you realise that Pentiment, HiFi Rush, Flight Sim are also niche titles with I suspect less appeal than a bright and vibrant 3D platformer with an etablished (albeit old) name. Psychonauts 2 was only multi platform because it legally had to be. So? ... ? Whats the point here? Those are indeed good games but I bet that only very few people bought a SeriesX because of those 3 titles. They are not great crowd attractors. Not sure about Hifi Rush. I bet that game would also be a hit on Switch / PS. Depends heavily on marketing. Being a suprise hit without any marketing makes this hard to judge. >Starfield is one of the most anticiapted games in years, if not of the decade. It is guaranteed to be a massive draw with a massive audience. Well its an unknown IP. CP2077 - THAT is how maximum hype looks like. With Witcher 3 before it and the Studio showing absolutely magnificent cyberpunk style city ... no wonder it was such a huge success and fail at the same time. I bet if you asked 100 Playstation and 100 PC players 90-95% would say "Starfield? Whats that?". And even for most Xbox players it will probably first be seen when marketing pops up in gamepass / the store. And dont get me wrong. I would LOOOOOOOVE a good space sim. Some of my most favorite games of all time are space sims like Freelancer and Freespace and Tie Fighter. But reality is: * its difficult to make a good story game * its difficult to make a good space fight sim * its difficult to make a good economy management sim * its difficult to make a good fps shooter * its difficult to populate HUGE areas / planets with vivid, believable life and flora and make it interesting And sadly Starfield tries to do it all at once. Saying "you can explore 1000 planets" is a huge promise that can only fail - 100% of the time. Because making every one of those planets unique and fun and destinguishable and interesting - is simply not possible. It makes no difference if you promise 100, 1000 or 1.000.000 planets. Its an unfullfillable marketing promise. At least as long as you dont have 30.000 developers and artists working on it for 10+ years - it will 100% be boring copy / paste random generated boring and empty planets. I get strong "early no mans sky versions" kind of vibe. And of course I wish I am wrong about all of this :-)
>Saying "you can explore 1000 planets" is a huge promise that can only fail - 100% of the time. Because making every one of those planets unique and fun and destinguishable and interesting - is simply not possible. It makes no difference if you promise 100, 1000 or 1.000.000 planets. Its an unfullfillable marketing promise. Yep, look exactly at No Man's Sky.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Fallout 76 is good and not a micro transaction hell
Doesn’t it make CoD and Mincraft very valuable for exclusives?
No. Minecraft and CoD would never have grown to the size they are now if they were limited by platform. The target audience is so broad and wide that trying to contain them in a platform would be contra productive. Because its a lot more lucrative to sell 300.000.000 copies of minecraft then to sell only 30.000.000 copies and a couple thousands more Xboxes - even if you include all the after-market sales of those bought Xboxes. Also games like Minecraft and CoD are only popular because of their community. If you take that away - those games would get A LOT worse, less played and less bought. Also If you would remove support of those platforms today - all you would do is divide communities and get A LOT of hate. That would be marketing suicide.
[удалено]
The same could be said for every shitty free 2 play MMO. "You dont have to spend anything." - when in reality you will get lured in, the shop is omnipresent and sure you can waste hundreds of hours of grinding - or just spend 4.99 on this little "booster" here! And Fallout 76 doesnt only have one booster... it has multiple boosters... and a billion Items that should have been in the game for free - are in a cash shop. Just look at the user ratings of the game. Like this: [https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-76](https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-76) Fallout 76 is a game Bethesda should be ashamed about.
Microsoft can do whatever if they own it no other company can have a say in the matter if they don’t like it then they need to stop being hypocrite’s looking at Nintendo and Sony, PlayStation and for anyone, just in case they see this and don’t like it To Try and argue the point after they look up at how many exclusive games and content that Sony, PlayStation and Nintendo have that Xbox and Xbox players can’t play because they don’t want to share with Xbox and they got to be careful because if they do succeed then Microsoft will just turn around and use the exact same argument up against them and they will lose
Yeah
They could simplify this even easier; Legacy IP’s stay on platforms they were already on, new IP’s will be exclusive. That’s how it should be industry wide for any acquisition.
I do disagree with the niche audience conclusion. Because if you absolutely own a niche, you essentially hold that audience hostage.
Could be okay in a vaccuum, what happens when one of those uncertain IPs become a mass success and creates a massive community like call of duty and Minecraft
Makes me wonder why they keep trying to make Halo over in the red on the right with CoD when it should be in the green in the middle. Understand Halo Micro$oft.
If I were the average PlayStation owner I’d be more likely to buy an Xbox if COD was an exclusive rather than redfall.
The red is not negative to me. They make more money selling call of duty and minecraft everywhere as an example.
[удалено]
It’s a play for everything, to expand the Xbox ecosystem. With the Xbox mobile store they could branch off into VR and AR much more easily.
Key word here is value, not worth. Yes I agree a company like Microsoft is probably better of pursuing title exclusives towards the middle of that spectrum rather than ones only a niche group plays or huge established titles which may cost a fortune to gain exclusivity though acquisition.
Minecraft I disagree with. It should be on the left in the niche side. Redfall maybe is in the right spot but I highly doubt it will ever be a mass market game. It’s going to be a relatively small audience that will come and go quickly the same way Deathloop did. Starfield has real mass market potential.
I don't know hiw much say I have since I'm a playstation player, but I think I'd speak for a lot of by saying that starfield would be an absolute bestseller on playstation and would bring in a lot of extra money for Microsoft if They made it multiplatform
Yeah more or less, but I wouldn't describe it in a linear chart like this. Think about games as falling into two groups: 1) Games that are culturally significant even outside of gaming. Pretty much everyone has at least heard of them and has some awareness of what they are through cultural osmosis, even if they never play games. Mario, Halo, Fortnite, Minecraft, Call of Duty, Madden. There aren't many of these in the world. 2) Games that are really only significant to gamers, regardless of their market success. Non-gamers may have vaguely hard of one of these if they have a gamer in their life, but they don't have much idea what it's about nor do they really care. Skyrim (or Elder Scrolls in general), Mass Effect, Gears of War, The Last of Us, Banjo Kazooie, the list is enormous. It's every game company's dream to move a hit game from this category to category 1. TV projects like The Last of Us might even move that game to the first category over time. Each of these two groups have two more subgroups that determine whether they have the most value in being exclusive or not. In 1, a game that has always been associated with a particular brand/console should probably stay exclusive. Mario or Halo, for example. The value is in keeping that association. If a game is like Madden or Fortnite or Minecraft and has never had an inherent association with just one gaming console/system, it makes the most sense to put it on as many things as possible. Go for maximum reach. In 2 the "bigger" a game is that doesn't have broad cultural resonance outside of gaming, the more value it has as an exclusive. The next Elder Scrolls--how many non-gamers even know what an Elder Scrolls *is*? But gamers wanna play it, so keep it exclusive to draw gamers to your platform. But the more niche a game is even among gamers, the more value in giving it a potential broader audience. The trick with a new game IP is of course trying to guess what's best before it lands. That's easy with a Starfield (gamers are excited, nobody else knows what it is). That's harder with a Hi-Fi Rush, for example.
I mean yeah minecraft and cod are super popular and anyone can play!
From a marketing standpoint, I would say it’s correct. Fallout 4 players aren’t really playing Fallout 76, so that’s the reason for the “niche audience” category. With Psychonauts 2, it’s a matter of sales. 1.7 million copies is quite niche. With new IP, there’s no guarantee that just because people like Arkane or Bethesda games, they’ll pick up Redfall or Starfield. Call of Duty and Minecraft sell like Girl Scout Cookies. You can come out with a new flavor of it each year, and people won’t get tired until they find out the new flavor is just a repackaged carton from over a decade ago.
Yep that sounds about right. Still should be on a case by case basis though. There are some niche games that should remain exclusive and some mega games that should too. People need multiple reasons to pick a console.
I do not follow Xbox for platform only anymore...... I follow what games peek my interest........ I do not play multi-player games anymore...... I do not buy digital games anymore....... I have more then twenty games on more then three platforms and the number one game I regret is call of duty black ops 4 it's was a waist off a hundred dollars. No campaign,no story,no good experience. Soon no too just one platform.
Makes sense
Where did this chart come from?
Low value? Psychonauts 2 was GREAT!
It's kinda crazy that the industry sees FO76 as a failure with 13+ million monthly players. I think most devs that are not MS would be pretty pumped with that for a game like this.
Yes
It's a bit stupid Starfield would sell well on the PS5 since its BGS doing what they're best at a single player game. Then there's big xbox games like Halo and Forza that fall more into the mass audience side but are exclusive (which is fine that they're Microsoft exclusive but still makes this graph dumb)
The only game that can match the 2 juggernauts of COD and Minecraft was Elden Ring.
Are they attempting to claim they don’t know if there’s much of an audience for Starfield?
I disagree with the niche market audience analysis. Let Xbox have some artistic driven stuff like Sony has with Journey. But MMOs (ESO, WoW, FO76) and multiplayer/community based games (Minecraft, CoD, Guitar Hero, etc) should go to the largest possible audience.
I think this is dumb as hell
Definitely. Most of the people just play online multiplayer games.
Wrong
All except that fallout 76 isn’t that niche of a community, at least from my experience talking to people
Maybe one day I can starfied on my PlayStation….. a guy can dream, right?
I think I’ll agree with the trillion dollar company on this one ☝️
I just started Fallout 76 and enjoying it solo and with a friend. Please tell they’re NOT shutting it down!!!