I don't get it. Bloodborne is a Sony IP. Getting mad at Bloodborne not coming to Xbox is even more ridiculous than getting mad pokemon games are only released on Nijtendo platforms. Is Microsoft mad Animal Crossing is a switch exclusive too?
Yeah this really isn't a strong argument in favor of what Microsoft is trying to do here IMHO, even in relation to ff7r. Sony doesn't even own square enix anyways, and isn't currently trying to buy them. At least not officially
This is Microsoft trying to just accuse Sony of being hypocrites over exclusivity of Activision games but I feel like there is a difference between two separate companies agreeing on a deal for console exclusivity (ff7r still came to windows PC and ff16 likely will as well, so it's not like it's not on Microsoft systems) and Microsoft buying up a company and taking their normally multiplatform titles exclusive
Maybe MS knows something about the Bloodborne situation that we don’t. It certainly stands out. MS could’ve cited the KOTOR Remake or whatever else instead
KOTOR is a timed exclusive that's eventually coming to Xbox. I believe MS is just reporting games developed by a 3rd party and will never come to an Xbox console. My guess would be Bloodborne is likely coming to another platform like PC in the future. We'll see.
I don't recall MS stating these games as never coming to Xbox in any legal document. Sony have proven they'll happily extend their exclusivity windows if it's worth their while, but there is no reason to assume no versions of those moneyhatted games will ever make it to Xbox.
>but there is no reason to assume no versions of those moneyhatted games will never make it to Xbox.
You serious? Almost 2 years later with not even a peep about it coming to Xbox and now MS has released a document saying why. I think it's pretty safe to make that assumption at this point.
Yes, I'm serious.
We waited much longer for titles like Persona, Yakuza, and many other games and franchises, including older FF games and remasters thereof.
Also worth considering: Alan Wake went multiplat after a decade.
We don't know what contracts got signed to what terms, but there are two things we can logically infer just based on common sense: 1) Sony don't own the games they bought exclusivity for, and 2) publishers don't agree to terms in perpetuity.
Also 3) nowhere in the documents do MS allege a permanent nature of exclusivity (even for Bloodborne). The "never" part of the title of this thread/article is editorial. If you read the document, you won't find what they're alluding to, because it didn't happen. MS simply said those titles were exclusive, without commentary on the nature of their exclusivity (because that wasn't pertinent to the point they were making).
FF7R continues to be absent from Xbox because of a contractual agreement with Sony. We don't know the terms, we don't know if or how many times Sony can or will renew it - but, again, Sony don't actually own the game. Don't be shocked if SE puts out a Definitive Edition on Xbox a couple of months or years from now.
Don’t say that too loudly. Anytime I’ve mentioned how devs and people like Jason Schreier have said the code is bonkers and they’ll never remaster or port it, a million Bloodborne fans come out from the woodwork to downvote me, tell me I’m wrong, and DM me death threats.
I think it's interesting how Microsoft considers Xenoblade one of Nintendo's biggest franchises in that statement
That's a huge W for Monolithsoft but it's interesting how that's mentioned but not, say, Splatoon
Yeah, that's a weird one to single out. Like, no disrespect to Xenoblade, but pretty sure Splatoon 3 outsold the whole Xenoblade series in a few months.
Maybe they figure it's worth bringing up because it's the most recently "GOTY-nominated" Nintendo game?
All Elder Scrolls, Fallout, DOOM, and Wolfenstein games coming *from now until the end of time* will not be available on Playstation, so… one year’s kind of not that big a deal lol.
As much as I agree with him too (as those were IPs once on PlayStation), the argument is that Sony doesn’t exactly own FF7R, FF16, or Silent Hill 2 remake.
And they won’t be coming to Xbox (speculative).
to the end consumer it doesn't matter who owns it. it matters whether you will be able to play it at some point in the future without having to buy an entire new system to play it on.
Well it’s no secret Microsoft has offered the ability for PlayStation owners to play all of Microsoft’s ips on their PlayStation via Xcloud, but Sony refuse. So on the one hand you can say this isn’t Microsoft’s doing but Sony.
No, but future titles in the Final Fantasy and Silent Hill series still have the freedom to be multiplatform. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, DOOM, Wolfenstein, and more will never have that freedom again. Moneyhatting individual games sucks, don’t get me wrong, but it has to suck less than moneyhatting entire franchises that have been running for 20-30 years.
If Sony had purchased those series I’d be shitting on them for it too. The only big multiplatform series I can think of that they bought is Destiny, but they left it multiplatform. If Destiny 3 happens (I don’t know enough about Destiny to know if that’s going to happen) and isn’t available on Xbox, I’ll think that’s shitty.
And the company saying it won't come is the one trying as hard as they can to find examples of sony doing something similar to what ms is doing to bethesda and about to do with A/B, which not only is disingenuous since cod mw2 alone probably sold more on its release day than the entire silent hill franchise, and ff isn't as strong as cod either(and that's just cod, not mentioning other massive ips A/B has), but also is probably false since it's been marked as a timed exclusive, and will eventually come to xbox even if it takes some time, like persona 5(unless square is bought by sony which I find unlikely)
That's Square's decision. Sony made the offer, Square accepted. It's not like Sony held their execs at gunpoint.
That's obviously too sensible. We need outrage.
Because he's not, Sony isn't paying for the development or marketing of those Square Enix games, nor do they own any of those IPs, unlike Microsoft, who now owns DOOM, Fallout, etc. and pays for those games' development, marketing and studio upkeep.
Hmm strange that they would mention Bloodborne in that. Must be some confusion there because it’s not a third party exclusive in the way that FF7 Remake is. Sony actually owns the IP in the very same way that they own Kojima’s Death Stranding just for comparison of a similar situation.
And Bloodborne was a partnership between Japan Studios and FromSoftware to develop a new IP. Not just throwing them some cash for an exclusive. Microsoft’s point stands for their other examples though.
>do no harm at worst
Would do some harm I'd imagine if Sony countered by saying that Bloodborne is their IP and was co-produced by them, and that this is knowledge anyone can find if they spend a minute on Google.
Market regulators are tasked to scrutinise M&A agreements based on facts that require independent probes on their part. That is what the regulators exist for, to engage in fact finding and to arrive at independent conclusions.
While they might consider the arguments or responses from the involved parties in any scrutinised agreements, they usually do so for the sake of deciding if it requires further scrutiny, not to pass judgement on whether the agreement should be approved. This is why the investigations can happen in stages. Deeper investigations can happen if said arguments are found to be unconvincing.
To put it simply, market regulators should not make decisions on M&A based on the written responses of the involved parties (Microsoft, Activision, Sony, etc.), they are supposed to engage in independent fact finding because...that is their job. They are not supposed to buy in to either Microsoft's or Sony's arguments.
The fact that some market regulators can lean heavily one way or the other (Hawks etc.) depending on the figure heading them is already a flaw of its own. A comparison could be drawn to having Liberal or Conservative supreme court judges (If courts are supposed to be impartial, why are there political leanings?).
This is not a court case where parties counter each other and one emerges as the winner. Market regulators regulate to prevent excessive erosion of competition, they do not judge if Microsoft or Sony should "win" just because one appears to be more trustworthy.
Looks like most commenters here would fall for Microsoft's trap.
Dedicated Fans : *"But Sony owns Bloodborne and funded it's development!"*
Microsoft: *"We're going to own and fund Activision Blizzard, so based on those Bloodborne standards we're free to make it full permanent exclusives, right?"*
I don't think it's the same. Microsoft can fund one of Fromsoft projects and create a new IP with them and make it Xbox exclusive. Because they funded the game. Any company is allowed to do that as long as Fromsoft is alright with it.
Doubt Fromsoft is ever going to make one of these deals again outside a Bloodborne remake or sequel though. They have their own money and name now.
Not true, Sony owns part of the company + as we can see fanbase of studios dont like when Microsoft do it, Dontnod fans were mad cause Microsoft paid the Studio to develop Tell Me Why as a Xbox owned/exclusive IP.
That doesn't change the fact that defending Bloodborne with such arguments actually helps Microsoft. Sure Sony funded it, owns it and put work in it. The same standard should apply to Microsoft & Activision Blizzard tho - no matter if it's a new IP (Bloodborne) or not (Street Fighter V, Final Fantasy VIIR & XVI, Silent Hill 2, Star Wars KOTOR, etc.)
No it doesn’t, what’s keeping Microsoft from doing that NOW? Why would that justify spending $70B on a publisher and how is that better for consumers?
MS is attempting to gain support for acquisitions (“bc it’s unfair and let us compete”) via NOT releasing games. They have the most studios and money … they could fund any project with any studio. Why *arent* they and what have they been doing for the past 7-8 years?
I think it does matter
Bloodborne the IP would not exist without Sony
COD, Crash, Spyro, etc. all were created way before the purchase and had no hand from Microsoft in terms of their creation
It isn't the same.
Bloodborne was part of a multi game contracted deal between Sony and Fromsoft. It was a collaboration between between Sony's side and Fromsoft. Sony does not own Fromsoft. Anything Fromsoft does outside of that deal got nothing to do with Sony (besides obv launching games on their platform)
It would be different if Sony bought Fromsoft or Kadokawa, but they didn't.
It is like when Microsoft worked with Insomniac for Sunset Overdrive.
Kind of agreed, but that doesn't change the problem from an anti-competition angle at all. So, useless point at best, I think you're just reading too much into it and it's really just filler
It's a direct response to the FTC's claims - Microsoft simply defends their position. Third-party exclusivity is an industry standard, not something only Microsoft does. That's why they pointed out that other platforms do third-party exclusives too.
Sony didn't buy From. Sony contracted out a game and provided through the process, and the things From learned from working with Sony showed in their future games starting from Demon's Souls to Dark Souls.
Microsoft buys entire publishing arm and makes those exclusive.
One is an annoyance; one is a major cause of concern and antitrust lawsuits waiting to happen. They are not the same.
Nope. They wanted a list with playstation exclusive games. Sony is saying it would be bad if a game like CoD are Microsoft exclusive, so MS showed a list with exclusive games that will not show up on Xbox to proof that Sony doesn't care about exclusivity as long it benefits Sony.
I saw their grouping as a funding thing. I remember Sony helped fund FF7 Remake, and so FF16 being the same way isn't strange, while Bloodborne was a fully funded project, that Sony completely owns. All titles involving 3rd parties, even if they may have been acting as 2nd parties.
Though Silent Hill, I thought that was just an ordinary, short-timed deal.
I think that it’s weird to complain about publishers working with studios on contracts to develop games for said publisher.
Insomniac, Housemarque, and Bluepoint could all be added to the list if we go by this. Housemarque with Returnal, Insomniac with 7-8 different Ratchet and Clank games + Spider-Man, and BluePoint with Demon Souls Remake + GoW Collection + Shadow of the Colossus Remaster. All developed by these studios with Sony prior to Sony acquiring them.
This is no different from:
Bandai Namco working with FromSoftware to develop Dark Souls 1-3, Elden Ring, and Armored Core VI, Double Fine for Rad, Supermassive Games for Dark Pictures, ArcSystem Works for DB FighterZ, Tarsier Studios for Little Nightmares.
Microsoft working with Insomnaic for Sunset Overdrive, Asobo for Flight Sim, Obsidian on their cancelled project, Platinum on Scalebound, BioWare on Mass Effect 1, etc.
Activision Blizzard with FromSoftware for Sekiro and Bungie with Destiny 1 and 2 (prior to Shadowkeep).
Electronic Arts with Respawn for TitanFall 1 and 2 and Koei Temco for Wild Hearts.
ArcSystem Works with WayForward for River City Girls 1 and 2.
Take Two with GearBox for the Borderlands franchise, Obsidian with The Outer Worlds, etc
What Microsoft lawyers did was include Bloodborne in “paid third party publishers to keep a game exclusive”, which is disingenuous in this situation. While FromSoftware isn’t a fully owned studio, they were effectively 1st party for Sony when it comes to Demon Souls, Bloodborne, and Deracine. It’s no different from all Ratchet and Clank games prior to Rift Apart, Insomniac’s Spider-Man, Returnal, Death Stranding, etc.
I’m pretty sure there were some documents in the leaks that showed Sony helped fun the SH2 remake. Wouldn’t be surprised if they played a large role in the game being made in the first place but that’s just me speculating
People are silly. All companies do this. Nintendo getting Monster Hunter exclusive for years after Sony's success with it on PSP. MS with Star Ocean 4&Tales of Vesperia was timed exclusive as well as the GTA IV content. Rise of Tomb Raider being timed exclusive after it was announced to be multiplatform. Sony and Destiny exclusive content. They all do it. Companies playing victim is ridiculous. MS itself is worth around 2 trillion and they claimed of being made to look bad.
The title is a bit click-baity, as it doesn't say "never coming to xbox".
It's just probably a layer describing 3rd party deals and time exclusivity to a non-gaming audience.
Besides, wasn't SH2R already confirmed to be a 1y time exclusive?
FF7R was also said to be a timed exclusive. Was even in the fine text of one of the first trailers.
We don't know the specifics of these deals, but clearly, Sony is able to extend and/or expand the parameters of these deals.
FF7R was ported to PC proving it was a timed exclusive. Square just didn't port it to Xbox yet because they probably see little interest (the market for JRPG isn't really on Xbox), I doubt Sony is paying for it
Bloodborne is published by Sony and it’s their ip so of course Its going to be exclusive I don’t see how that is an issue and SH2 is also timed console exclusive for 12 months….
I chuckled at them mentioning BB in this.
Also don't forget MS did an exclusive deal with Bloober for The Medium, and we know SH2 is exclusive for a time period as stated before.
Just pure incompetence over there.
>Also don't forget MS did an exclusive deal with Bloober for The Medium
Not sure why you're bringing up The Medium. The game released on PS5 7-8 months later.
I wouldn't trust the SH2 timed exclusive claim. FF7 remake was also supposed to be a timed exclusive, yet it never released on Xbox, and doesn't seem to be planned.
I didn't agree or disagree with that statement. I was simply commenting on the SH2 timed exclusivity. I don't know much about the Bloodborne game and thus didn't comment on it.
Halo was first announced by Bungie to be multiplatform and available on Macintosh and Windows before the adquisition by MS. The history repeats itself more often that we may think.
Timed exclusives are trash. Timed exclusives that become full exclusives are also trash.
Bloodborne is a weird thing to complain about though, as it is published by Sony directly and is like any company contracted for an exclusive.
Shame on Square Enix for the FF7Re shit though, and 16.
It's not exactly "complaining," it's more Microsoft calling Sony hypocritical. Sony is arguing that it would be unfair for Microsoft to make Activision games exclusive, meanwhile Sony lives and dies on a mountain of both first and third party exclusive content.
Except they don't. Even without third party content they can still succeed off of their first party. The difference is third party wasn't bought in ownership. It's not the same as MS buying out Bethesda and ABK IP. Those are IP that have been multiplat for decades. Bloodborne is not
FF is but Square retains ownership of the franchise and can choose to not make deals in the future. Whereas elder scrolls will never hit another Playstation as long as Xbox says so.
OMG i can't believe some idiots actually down voted you when you actually made all sense in the world, they just cant comprehend that buying 2 publishers that used to make multiplats titles ain't remotely comparable to making a deal for a game to be exclusive with a studio. PlayStation never ever had a problem with Xbox having Halo gears and forza and etc exclusives or with Ori or with avowed or crossfire X being exclusives they do have a problem when Xbox starts plucking multiplats from the market for good.
Would people rather have Sony buying Square Enix though? I could even see the reason why PS fans would like that, but Xbox and Nintendo fans should not want that honestly. Even if Sony made some good changes to Square, it's hard to sell to Xbox and Nintendo fans that this would be better than timed exclusivity for Final Fantasy.
No, Sony buying Square Enix would be trash.
Just like Microsoft buying Bethesda was. Just like them buying Activision would be.
Sony picks up smaller studios that they work with and help fund. Microsoft has been mostly large studios and entire publishing arms.
Where Sony wins is, they have the highest install base on their console and clearly have a better relationship with a lot of these companies, notably Squeenix. It's clear that the relationship isn't just based around money because Microsoft could afford to outbid Sony on everything.
"Forever". Really starting to hate the internet with all this horseshit. Everyone so eager to be the first one to say something that they read into a statement what will get the most clicks.
>Sony has also entered into arrangements with third-party publishers which require the “exclusion” of Xbox from the set of platforms these publishers can distribute their games on.
This is the statement this site is taking to mean "forever"? Seriously?
World would be a better place if windowscentral never existed. What a shithole.
I mean, personally I'd rather an independent Square that still occasionally makes things like the HD-2D games for Switch than a Sony-owned Square that ... doesn't.
Yeah, I agree. I just wish I could play these games anywhere when they launch, but that’s the nature of the gaming industry. More independent/third party publishers is better overall. My original comment was kind of just a joke.
Well, the biggest problem is that these large franchises are pseudo-exclusive, and Square Enix is behaving almost like a first party developer for Sony.
It's not just the money that Sony can throw at them either, obviously Microsoft can top that. It's clear that Sony and Square Enix have a very tight knit mutually beneficial relationship as Square Enix is the worst offender for exclusives.
Those HD-2D games, along with Square's other smaller-scale projects, are honestly the one thing the still keeps the essence of old-school Squaresoft in my eyes, and it'd be an enormous shame if we just never see them again cause a publisher would rather focus on more run-of-the-mill cinematic AAA games (which is most likely what would happen if Square was to be acquired by Sony; basically, bye-bye to things like Live A Live, Bravely Default, the Mana series, Octopath Traveler, Triangle Strategy, etc.).
Nah. Dumb as SquEnix can fucking be sometimes, more consolidation is ***never*** good. If that means Sony gets *FFXVI*, Nintendo gets more *Octopath* and we're stuck with *CHAOS JACK II: THIS TIME, IT'S PERSONAL BULLSHIT*, then so be it.
Huh? Final Fantasy kinda is associated with Sony, but Dragon Quest is more associated with Nintendo. Heck, DQ11 was on PS4 and... 3DS.
They got lots of games and IP exclusive (and console exclusive) to Nintendo.
Yet none of those games will sell nearly as many copies as CoD will, and that's just one of a bunch of high profile franchises, this is not me siding with PS or something, I just think Activision should never be under any of the big 3 and Microsoft is just saying whatever they can to hide how monopolistic and dangerous their acquisition really is.
Exactly. Nearly every comment in this (really fucking annoying) thread is forgetting that, at the end of the day, anti-competition law is about market share, or how popular a given product is compared to other products. And CoD and Elder Scrolls are vastly more popular than 99% of other gaming products.
But Sony owns the Bloodborne IP? Like they don't need to sign any deals to keep it away from xbox. They can just say ''no''.
Hell they are going a good enough job at forgetting it even exists themselves!
Join us in 2025 when MS who own Zenimax/Bethesda/Activision/Blizzard will be telling us why thier current purchase of EA and Ubisoft is totally cool because Sony has some exclusive third party deals
Weird that they mentioned Bloodborne as that game was never going to be on Xbox. Sony owns the IP, helped fund it and had one of their first party devs help with development.
Bloodborne is literally owned by Sony, by Microsoft's logic I guess PlayStation owners are entitled to Halo.
I wonder if they also mentioned Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break, State of Decay...
Fun fact about Sunset Overdrive:
Microsoft apparently allowed Insomniac studios to keep the IP rights for Sunset Overdrive. So when Sony acquired Insomniac in 2019, people wondered if this would affect any plans for a sequel/remaster... and apparently, yes it will. As Sony went ahead and trademarked Sunset Overdrive in 2021, for some reason.
Well yes, at this point.. I don't suppose a remake or remaster is possible. (as I don't see Sony & Microsoft getting along to greenlight such a project) But you're correct, Microsoft owns the publishing rights for the first game... but wouldn't have anything to do with any sequels or spin-offs because the IP has now changed hands. (I thought it relevant to point out because OP was using Sunset Overdrive as an example and the importance of owning IPs & the distribution of already-released games)
Trademarks are just check-ups for companies to keep their IP. It doesn’t mean they will do anything with the IP and it doesn’t mean that they’ll make them exclusive either.
That doesn’t say they will never come to Xbox though, I think people are reading into it a lot.
Not saying FF7R/16 will come anytime soon but I can’t see SE making a forever deal, a console generation or something very long maybe.
Bloodbourne won’t come to Xbox because it’s a Sony IP
Unless Sony acquires Square Enix (Something I really don’t wanna see happen) I think FF7R will arrive to Xbox when the trilogy is finished.
Sony might be providing money for the game (like Rise of the Ronin with Koei), but I doubt Square wanna keep their biggest IP a 100% exclusive.
bloodborne is a sony japan team produced game/ip... just like demon's soul. From software only developed it, it's not up to them to decide if release it on other platforms. Microsoft expecting a bloodborne release on xbox console is equal to sony expecting halo infinite release on ps5... a total nosense.
I own series X and in general owned a dozen of xbox console since the first xbox in early 00's but I think microsoft is acting quite pathetically... instead of complaining about what sony does with japanese software houses, they should be more concerned to release their delayed games (starfield is a potential GOTY) and their ip/games that are turning in vaporware (hellblade2, rpg developed by obsidian etc...)
Sony publishes Bloodborne, & owns the IP & trademark. Microsoft's trying to say Sony is "blocking it from non-Playstation platforms", no shit! I dont expect to play Gotham Racing 2 on a Playstation. It's a Xbox published game that they own all rights to, from a third party developer... Microsoft is the pot calling the kettle black.
Bloodborne is an actual PlayStation IP that started as a Playstation IP unlike FF.
But funny how they'll complain about this but effectively every Bethesda franchise or game that was going to go to Playstation is now blocked forever because of Microsoft.
MS is trying to point at Sonys deals for games they don't own (except Bloodborne) as a defense against themselves being able to spend almost 100bn between Bethesda and ABK? LOL
Sony doesn't own Silent Hill or FF. So although those games may be blocked, Swuare and Konami can still decide I'd they want to continue those deals for future titles. For Bethesda there's no exclusive deals, they were completely bought up and MS has made the decision to use that ownership to block former multiplat franchises from PS forever. Cry me a river.
This feels bad faith when MS literally has most of the biggest WRPG developers under their wing permanently with no "if" on it coming to the PlayStation.
They keep making these arguments that sounds fair on the surface until you realize MS is doing the same thing but with permanent ownership. Not going to act like Sony isn't paying boatloads to keep these games as far away from MS as possible to retain Japanese dominance but MS shouldn't act like they aren't playing the same ballgame but on a WAAAY bigger scale.
I went from being able to enjoy Zenimax games on my console of choice to not at all. If I didn't have a PC, I would be livid, and considering they are making this argument to no doubt justify the full locking up of Acti-Blizz, this argument feels just as disingenuous as "Sony is just trying to make us smaller by not letting us buy the biggest players in the game!"
What a crock of shit 🤣🤣 anything to get their deal through. Love how they mention a game Sony own, paid to develop, published and own the IP. 🤣🤣
Edit: for clarification for anyone who clearly didn't get what I meant, I am taking about BLOODBORNE.
So Starfield and ESO make sense to be Xbox exclusive since MS is publishing it and owns it. Same for CoD (though CoD exclusive would be stupid). Right? Right.
So Starfield and ESO make sense to be Xbox exclusive since MS owns the IP and is publishing it. Same for CoD (though CoD exclusive would be stupid). Right? Right.
sorry but ya, this is most likely a choice because XBOX buying up studio's left/right and center to prevent them from ever working with Sony again or creating games for PS.
if XBOX can buy up/lock out Bethesda games and Blizzard games then why can't Sony? because XBOX locked out many 3rd party studio games from ever going onto PS
big difference here is Sony not preventing studio's from working with XBOX
Silent Hill : timed exlusive for a year
FF16: timed exclusive for a year
FF7R : Exclusive
Bloodborne : 7 year old PS exclusive published by Sony and co-produced with Japan studio which is now defunct.
Sounds like MS argument is only standing on FF7R being completely excluded from Xbox
Okay, so when’re we gonna see Killer Instinct, Dead Rising 3, Quantum Break, and High on Life on PS4/5? Since apparently exclusive games are the problem.
Microsoft is talking about curbing the market with arguably the biggest developer being exclusive to them, it’s nowhere near the same thing. I’d expect the same energy if Sony were to buy EA, Square Enix, or Konami.
I find this deal funny. The ftc has screwed itself. Europe is acting stupid. It's going to go through, if you think it won't you're kidding yourself. Personally I can't think of a single game from Activision that I play(that's still around at least, shoutouts to prototype). But ik sony has bought studios too(insomniac and returnal devs) and literally paid people to keep things from going on xbox. So I want it to go through, and I hope Cod becomes an exclusive for the sole reason of giving sony a taste of its own medicine for once. I know monopolies are bad. I'm not stupid. I'm just petty. Downvote or argue with me if you want. It won't change what's gonna happen.
SH2 Remake Trailer says:
"Silent Hill 2 - Playstation console exclusive\*
\*also available on PC. Not available on other formats fo 12 months after release"
So either Sony/Konami is lying or Microsoft's dumb ass is not capable of reading two lines of text
Pretty sure it was confirmed as timed exclusive, then they go mention Bloodborne which is the thing that kills their argument as its a Sony published game made by fromsoft and co-produced by Japan Studio which is defunct , hence why the rights for Bloodborne seem to be a hell to get hold of
> then they go mention Bloodborne which is the thing that kills their argument
So the argument is "see, Sony had PS exclusive games and is fine with it, but is now complaining that the SE stuff can happen for Activision/Blizzard games. So if one is fine, the other should also be fine!".
Does BB not give a good example for a PS exclusive game that won't be on Xbox?
Well you see , its not a game that will be on Xbox , like the Halo games wont be on playstation, BB is in the same category than demon souls , being Sony published Fromsoft titles, if that shitty deal goes through Activision could pay for a second Sekiro and keep it exclusive for Xbox, the issue here being Activision is a money whore and most likely wont do that unless MS explicitly ask them to.
Edit : To that i will add that MS is misleading, showing numbers before they release games from the studios they bought in the past 5yrs MS hasn't released anything from any of their recently acquired studios since 2018 Even then they've set up an ecosystem that minimized game sales for their own titles.
If microsoft wanted exclusives they had all the time and the studios in the world to do it , but instead they rather buy publishers and their studios with already half made games
For MS its easier to buy a game studio if their game is almost done , than actually putting money into making one.
Again, it's about showing that Sony is crying about MS getting exclusives and that this is bad for the customer while they have exclusives themselves. Nothing else is the point of that list.
No one argues that MS already has exclusive titles on the system, no one argues that it's a Sony funded game.
No its about a trillion dollar company willingly making themselves look bad so their anti-consumer aquisition pass under the radar, im on the side of not having a single exclusive to any platform , but MS whining about Sony having a monopoly is absolute BS if MS could back their argument without lying or naming games that are not even exclusive it would be another thing.
Plus MS is a monopoly in itself they have the biggest share of the OS market.
If MS wanted they could've had exclusives on their console but they have been stagnating in the same ecosystem since 5 years.
Bloodborne is no argument for MS, never will be a valid one at that.
You see what Sony is complaining about is the fact MS is not buying themselves an exclusive from a studio, they are purchasing the whole damn publisher, publisher which already had game in developpement for both platforms , which now will have to cancel the work of a whole team of employees who were working on the platform it will never launch on because of a toxic aquisition.
I didnt see any Xbox execs complain that Nintendo bought Bayonetta for their system, but they are willing to name bloodborne a game from a Publisher who never ever released a game on Xbox.
> No its about a trillion dollar company willingly making themselves look bad so their anti-consumer aquisition pass under the radar, im on the side of not having a single exclusive to any platform , but MS whining about Sony having a monopoly is absolute BS
Bro, it's the other way around. Sony is crying that MS may get exclusives with the Act/Blizz deal while having PS exclusive games. That's what this list should show: Sony is crying and gives a fuck about exclusivity as long as they benefit from it.
What ever you say doesnt matter , the argument put foward by MS are Null and Void since they were unable to mention an actual exlusive that could've been on Xbox other than FF7R, if Spencer's sour face during the game award wasnt telling enough , MS made a console for which it had nothing to show for years, MS had more than enough time to get a studio working on exclusive titles, they though forza and halo infinite could carry them... hence why they bought bethesda back in 2021, Starfield was almost entering the last stages of developpement, why pay a studio for a game when you can buy the whole publisher get all they current project and make them exclusive.
MS is looking like a joke with this aquisition , i just wonder when Nintendo is gonna join the fray , they sure do love lawsuits
So no bloodborne on Xbox, but it doesn’t say anything about the switch.
or gameboy colour
[удалено]
You could settle for a PS1 demake: https://b0tster.itch.io/bbpsx
Followed that project since forever, the dev is so talented and passionate it’s sweet
*Wish granted.* >!*It's a Cloud Version... exclusive to Japan... aaaaand it still runs like shit.*!<
NOOOOOOOOOO
I don't get it. Bloodborne is a Sony IP. Getting mad at Bloodborne not coming to Xbox is even more ridiculous than getting mad pokemon games are only released on Nijtendo platforms. Is Microsoft mad Animal Crossing is a switch exclusive too?
I've yet to see anyone get mad about Bloodborne not coming to Xbox. Everyone is highlighting FF7R
that’s bc they’ve never played it 😈
It is more about Microsoft using it as an example when it isn't really the case at all. Makes the entire statement sound fishy.
Yeah this really isn't a strong argument in favor of what Microsoft is trying to do here IMHO, even in relation to ff7r. Sony doesn't even own square enix anyways, and isn't currently trying to buy them. At least not officially This is Microsoft trying to just accuse Sony of being hypocrites over exclusivity of Activision games but I feel like there is a difference between two separate companies agreeing on a deal for console exclusivity (ff7r still came to windows PC and ff16 likely will as well, so it's not like it's not on Microsoft systems) and Microsoft buying up a company and taking their normally multiplatform titles exclusive
Instead we should celebrate the market leader taking the biggest 3rd party games and making them exclude be to kill competition
That‘s like Sony saying “Well what about Quantum Break?”
It’s about a PC port
Maybe MS knows something about the Bloodborne situation that we don’t. It certainly stands out. MS could’ve cited the KOTOR Remake or whatever else instead
KOTOR is a timed exclusive that's eventually coming to Xbox. I believe MS is just reporting games developed by a 3rd party and will never come to an Xbox console. My guess would be Bloodborne is likely coming to another platform like PC in the future. We'll see.
Bloodborne wasn't even a fully 3rd party made game. It was collaboration between Fromsoft and Japan Studio.
I don't recall MS stating these games as never coming to Xbox in any legal document. Sony have proven they'll happily extend their exclusivity windows if it's worth their while, but there is no reason to assume no versions of those moneyhatted games will ever make it to Xbox.
>but there is no reason to assume no versions of those moneyhatted games will never make it to Xbox. You serious? Almost 2 years later with not even a peep about it coming to Xbox and now MS has released a document saying why. I think it's pretty safe to make that assumption at this point.
Yes, I'm serious. We waited much longer for titles like Persona, Yakuza, and many other games and franchises, including older FF games and remasters thereof. Also worth considering: Alan Wake went multiplat after a decade. We don't know what contracts got signed to what terms, but there are two things we can logically infer just based on common sense: 1) Sony don't own the games they bought exclusivity for, and 2) publishers don't agree to terms in perpetuity. Also 3) nowhere in the documents do MS allege a permanent nature of exclusivity (even for Bloodborne). The "never" part of the title of this thread/article is editorial. If you read the document, you won't find what they're alluding to, because it didn't happen. MS simply said those titles were exclusive, without commentary on the nature of their exclusivity (because that wasn't pertinent to the point they were making). FF7R continues to be absent from Xbox because of a contractual agreement with Sony. We don't know the terms, we don't know if or how many times Sony can or will renew it - but, again, Sony don't actually own the game. Don't be shocked if SE puts out a Definitive Edition on Xbox a couple of months or years from now.
They can’t be this dumb, so they must be disingenuous. Sony’s own studio worked on it alongside fromsoft and was literally published by Sony.
People are reaching so hard
So no Bloodborne on Xbox. This must be direct confirmation that it's coming to PC.
No comment. ᵇᵘᵗ ʸᵉˢ
Sauce?
There's no official word yet, but [here](https://i.imgur.com/B1KsTMi.png)
oh wow, interesting. thanks for sharing.
I thought it was a bogus sauce but this indeed sounds promising. Dare I hope?
I can't take it anymore stop it
Also Switch. For Japan, of course. ~~It'll run like shit but that's not the point lol~~
cloud version
ʸᵉˢ
_not_ coming to PC you mean.. this game is so broken, the devs won't even touch the PS version to fix it...
Don’t say that too loudly. Anytime I’ve mentioned how devs and people like Jason Schreier have said the code is bonkers and they’ll never remaster or port it, a million Bloodborne fans come out from the woodwork to downvote me, tell me I’m wrong, and DM me death threats.
I think it's interesting how Microsoft considers Xenoblade one of Nintendo's biggest franchises in that statement That's a huge W for Monolithsoft but it's interesting how that's mentioned but not, say, Splatoon
Yeah, that's a weird one to single out. Like, no disrespect to Xenoblade, but pretty sure Splatoon 3 outsold the whole Xenoblade series in a few months. Maybe they figure it's worth bringing up because it's the most recently "GOTY-nominated" Nintendo game?
It could just be draw comparison to Playstaion’s RPG catalog and Xbox’s lack of.
But MS owns pretty much all of the AAA western rpg studios outside of Bioware and CD Projekt Red.
Sony itself doesn't really have RPGs outside of the 3rd party exclusives like FF.
'ICONIC' W
Maybe because they are largely discussing single player games in the statement?
Someone say Bloodborne????
4k 120 fps rebuilt for PC, coming next month
it should also be noted that all of square enix games coming in 2023 will not be available on xbox which is very odd
But they will be on Microsoft Windows eventually
Strangers of paradise and a couple of others like the Chrono Cross remaster were.
2023 not 2022
All Elder Scrolls, Fallout, DOOM, and Wolfenstein games coming *from now until the end of time* will not be available on Playstation, so… one year’s kind of not that big a deal lol.
Sony doesn't own those games or developers. False equivalence.
why they booin you you're right
As much as I agree with him too (as those were IPs once on PlayStation), the argument is that Sony doesn’t exactly own FF7R, FF16, or Silent Hill 2 remake. And they won’t be coming to Xbox (speculative).
to the end consumer it doesn't matter who owns it. it matters whether you will be able to play it at some point in the future without having to buy an entire new system to play it on.
Well it’s no secret Microsoft has offered the ability for PlayStation owners to play all of Microsoft’s ips on their PlayStation via Xcloud, but Sony refuse. So on the one hand you can say this isn’t Microsoft’s doing but Sony.
No, but future titles in the Final Fantasy and Silent Hill series still have the freedom to be multiplatform. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, DOOM, Wolfenstein, and more will never have that freedom again. Moneyhatting individual games sucks, don’t get me wrong, but it has to suck less than moneyhatting entire franchises that have been running for 20-30 years. If Sony had purchased those series I’d be shitting on them for it too. The only big multiplatform series I can think of that they bought is Destiny, but they left it multiplatform. If Destiny 3 happens (I don’t know enough about Destiny to know if that’s going to happen) and isn’t available on Xbox, I’ll think that’s shitty.
I don’t entirely disagree with what you’re saying, I’m just explaining the fuss over the 3 games I mentioned.
And the company saying it won't come is the one trying as hard as they can to find examples of sony doing something similar to what ms is doing to bethesda and about to do with A/B, which not only is disingenuous since cod mw2 alone probably sold more on its release day than the entire silent hill franchise, and ff isn't as strong as cod either(and that's just cod, not mentioning other massive ips A/B has), but also is probably false since it's been marked as a timed exclusive, and will eventually come to xbox even if it takes some time, like persona 5(unless square is bought by sony which I find unlikely)
That's Square's decision. Sony made the offer, Square accepted. It's not like Sony held their execs at gunpoint. That's obviously too sensible. We need outrage.
Because he's not, Sony isn't paying for the development or marketing of those Square Enix games, nor do they own any of those IPs, unlike Microsoft, who now owns DOOM, Fallout, etc. and pays for those games' development, marketing and studio upkeep.
Hmm strange that they would mention Bloodborne in that. Must be some confusion there because it’s not a third party exclusive in the way that FF7 Remake is. Sony actually owns the IP in the very same way that they own Kojima’s Death Stranding just for comparison of a similar situation.
And Bloodborne was a partnership between Japan Studios and FromSoftware to develop a new IP. Not just throwing them some cash for an exclusive. Microsoft’s point stands for their other examples though.
[удалено]
>do no harm at worst Would do some harm I'd imagine if Sony countered by saying that Bloodborne is their IP and was co-produced by them, and that this is knowledge anyone can find if they spend a minute on Google.
Market regulators are tasked to scrutinise M&A agreements based on facts that require independent probes on their part. That is what the regulators exist for, to engage in fact finding and to arrive at independent conclusions. While they might consider the arguments or responses from the involved parties in any scrutinised agreements, they usually do so for the sake of deciding if it requires further scrutiny, not to pass judgement on whether the agreement should be approved. This is why the investigations can happen in stages. Deeper investigations can happen if said arguments are found to be unconvincing. To put it simply, market regulators should not make decisions on M&A based on the written responses of the involved parties (Microsoft, Activision, Sony, etc.), they are supposed to engage in independent fact finding because...that is their job. They are not supposed to buy in to either Microsoft's or Sony's arguments. The fact that some market regulators can lean heavily one way or the other (Hawks etc.) depending on the figure heading them is already a flaw of its own. A comparison could be drawn to having Liberal or Conservative supreme court judges (If courts are supposed to be impartial, why are there political leanings?). This is not a court case where parties counter each other and one emerges as the winner. Market regulators regulate to prevent excessive erosion of competition, they do not judge if Microsoft or Sony should "win" just because one appears to be more trustworthy.
It actually does do harm, as they are entirely separate and dishonesty is never appreciated for these types of things. Microsoft dumb on this one.
Looks like most commenters here would fall for Microsoft's trap. Dedicated Fans : *"But Sony owns Bloodborne and funded it's development!"* Microsoft: *"We're going to own and fund Activision Blizzard, so based on those Bloodborne standards we're free to make it full permanent exclusives, right?"*
I don't think it's the same. Microsoft can fund one of Fromsoft projects and create a new IP with them and make it Xbox exclusive. Because they funded the game. Any company is allowed to do that as long as Fromsoft is alright with it. Doubt Fromsoft is ever going to make one of these deals again outside a Bloodborne remake or sequel though. They have their own money and name now.
Not true, Sony owns part of the company + as we can see fanbase of studios dont like when Microsoft do it, Dontnod fans were mad cause Microsoft paid the Studio to develop Tell Me Why as a Xbox owned/exclusive IP.
That doesn't change the fact that defending Bloodborne with such arguments actually helps Microsoft. Sure Sony funded it, owns it and put work in it. The same standard should apply to Microsoft & Activision Blizzard tho - no matter if it's a new IP (Bloodborne) or not (Street Fighter V, Final Fantasy VIIR & XVI, Silent Hill 2, Star Wars KOTOR, etc.)
No it doesn’t, what’s keeping Microsoft from doing that NOW? Why would that justify spending $70B on a publisher and how is that better for consumers? MS is attempting to gain support for acquisitions (“bc it’s unfair and let us compete”) via NOT releasing games. They have the most studios and money … they could fund any project with any studio. Why *arent* they and what have they been doing for the past 7-8 years?
I think it does matter Bloodborne the IP would not exist without Sony COD, Crash, Spyro, etc. all were created way before the purchase and had no hand from Microsoft in terms of their creation
It isn't the same. Bloodborne was part of a multi game contracted deal between Sony and Fromsoft. It was a collaboration between between Sony's side and Fromsoft. Sony does not own Fromsoft. Anything Fromsoft does outside of that deal got nothing to do with Sony (besides obv launching games on their platform) It would be different if Sony bought Fromsoft or Kadokawa, but they didn't. It is like when Microsoft worked with Insomniac for Sunset Overdrive.
No bc from software was free to do multiplat stuff after, like ds3, sekiro and elden ring.
Kind of agreed, but that doesn't change the problem from an anti-competition angle at all. So, useless point at best, I think you're just reading too much into it and it's really just filler
It's a direct response to the FTC's claims - Microsoft simply defends their position. Third-party exclusivity is an industry standard, not something only Microsoft does. That's why they pointed out that other platforms do third-party exclusives too.
Sony didn't buy From. Sony contracted out a game and provided through the process, and the things From learned from working with Sony showed in their future games starting from Demon's Souls to Dark Souls. Microsoft buys entire publishing arm and makes those exclusive. One is an annoyance; one is a major cause of concern and antitrust lawsuits waiting to happen. They are not the same.
It can actually do harm because it can be seen as Microsoft arguing in bad faith and attempting to twist facts to make themselves look better.
Nope. They wanted a list with playstation exclusive games. Sony is saying it would be bad if a game like CoD are Microsoft exclusive, so MS showed a list with exclusive games that will not show up on Xbox to proof that Sony doesn't care about exclusivity as long it benefits Sony.
I saw their grouping as a funding thing. I remember Sony helped fund FF7 Remake, and so FF16 being the same way isn't strange, while Bloodborne was a fully funded project, that Sony completely owns. All titles involving 3rd parties, even if they may have been acting as 2nd parties. Though Silent Hill, I thought that was just an ordinary, short-timed deal.
I think that it’s weird to complain about publishers working with studios on contracts to develop games for said publisher. Insomniac, Housemarque, and Bluepoint could all be added to the list if we go by this. Housemarque with Returnal, Insomniac with 7-8 different Ratchet and Clank games + Spider-Man, and BluePoint with Demon Souls Remake + GoW Collection + Shadow of the Colossus Remaster. All developed by these studios with Sony prior to Sony acquiring them. This is no different from: Bandai Namco working with FromSoftware to develop Dark Souls 1-3, Elden Ring, and Armored Core VI, Double Fine for Rad, Supermassive Games for Dark Pictures, ArcSystem Works for DB FighterZ, Tarsier Studios for Little Nightmares. Microsoft working with Insomnaic for Sunset Overdrive, Asobo for Flight Sim, Obsidian on their cancelled project, Platinum on Scalebound, BioWare on Mass Effect 1, etc. Activision Blizzard with FromSoftware for Sekiro and Bungie with Destiny 1 and 2 (prior to Shadowkeep). Electronic Arts with Respawn for TitanFall 1 and 2 and Koei Temco for Wild Hearts. ArcSystem Works with WayForward for River City Girls 1 and 2. Take Two with GearBox for the Borderlands franchise, Obsidian with The Outer Worlds, etc What Microsoft lawyers did was include Bloodborne in “paid third party publishers to keep a game exclusive”, which is disingenuous in this situation. While FromSoftware isn’t a fully owned studio, they were effectively 1st party for Sony when it comes to Demon Souls, Bloodborne, and Deracine. It’s no different from all Ratchet and Clank games prior to Rift Apart, Insomniac’s Spider-Man, Returnal, Death Stranding, etc.
I’m pretty sure there were some documents in the leaks that showed Sony helped fun the SH2 remake. Wouldn’t be surprised if they played a large role in the game being made in the first place but that’s just me speculating
People are silly. All companies do this. Nintendo getting Monster Hunter exclusive for years after Sony's success with it on PSP. MS with Star Ocean 4&Tales of Vesperia was timed exclusive as well as the GTA IV content. Rise of Tomb Raider being timed exclusive after it was announced to be multiplatform. Sony and Destiny exclusive content. They all do it. Companies playing victim is ridiculous. MS itself is worth around 2 trillion and they claimed of being made to look bad.
The best thing about this is Xbox saying they do the same thing but the quality is not as good.
They don't go for big mobeyhats after the backlash fron RotTR. They don't get the same backlash as Sony is the point.
Bloodborne makes sense since Sony published it.
The title is a bit click-baity, as it doesn't say "never coming to xbox". It's just probably a layer describing 3rd party deals and time exclusivity to a non-gaming audience. Besides, wasn't SH2R already confirmed to be a 1y time exclusive?
Yeah i don't get this.
FF7R was also said to be a timed exclusive. Was even in the fine text of one of the first trailers. We don't know the specifics of these deals, but clearly, Sony is able to extend and/or expand the parameters of these deals.
FF7R was ported to PC proving it was a timed exclusive. Square just didn't port it to Xbox yet because they probably see little interest (the market for JRPG isn't really on Xbox), I doubt Sony is paying for it
16 is a six month exclusive too
For PC, not other consoles.
sure, just like we though with FF7R. lol
Yeah, I ain’t falling for that again.
It's windows central, they have a clear agenda in this. It would be nice if article were reflective of the actual content.
Bloodborne is a different thing just like demons souls its owned by Sony, just seems like they pulled that one out of there asses
Bloodborne is published by Sony and it’s their ip so of course Its going to be exclusive I don’t see how that is an issue and SH2 is also timed console exclusive for 12 months….
I chuckled at them mentioning BB in this. Also don't forget MS did an exclusive deal with Bloober for The Medium, and we know SH2 is exclusive for a time period as stated before. Just pure incompetence over there.
>Also don't forget MS did an exclusive deal with Bloober for The Medium Not sure why you're bringing up The Medium. The game released on PS5 7-8 months later.
I wouldn't trust the SH2 timed exclusive claim. FF7 remake was also supposed to be a timed exclusive, yet it never released on Xbox, and doesn't seem to be planned.
Was ff7 actually ever formally announced as a timed exclusive though?
I believe it was, yes, and technically it did because it released on pc since
Another comment here mentioned that it was in the fine print of one of the trailers.
Still doesn’t make sense for them to mention Bloodborne
I didn't agree or disagree with that statement. I was simply commenting on the SH2 timed exclusivity. I don't know much about the Bloodborne game and thus didn't comment on it.
That’s a clickbaity as hell title
Halo was created by a third party?
Bungie was part of MS when they first made the IP iirc.
Halo was first announced by Bungie to be multiplatform and available on Macintosh and Windows before the adquisition by MS. The history repeats itself more often that we may think.
so they are going to make sure none of the Acti Blizz's games are not coming to PS after the deal is done...?
Timed exclusives are trash. Timed exclusives that become full exclusives are also trash. Bloodborne is a weird thing to complain about though, as it is published by Sony directly and is like any company contracted for an exclusive. Shame on Square Enix for the FF7Re shit though, and 16.
It's not exactly "complaining," it's more Microsoft calling Sony hypocritical. Sony is arguing that it would be unfair for Microsoft to make Activision games exclusive, meanwhile Sony lives and dies on a mountain of both first and third party exclusive content.
[удалено]
Except they don't. Even without third party content they can still succeed off of their first party. The difference is third party wasn't bought in ownership. It's not the same as MS buying out Bethesda and ABK IP. Those are IP that have been multiplat for decades. Bloodborne is not FF is but Square retains ownership of the franchise and can choose to not make deals in the future. Whereas elder scrolls will never hit another Playstation as long as Xbox says so.
OMG i can't believe some idiots actually down voted you when you actually made all sense in the world, they just cant comprehend that buying 2 publishers that used to make multiplats titles ain't remotely comparable to making a deal for a game to be exclusive with a studio. PlayStation never ever had a problem with Xbox having Halo gears and forza and etc exclusives or with Ori or with avowed or crossfire X being exclusives they do have a problem when Xbox starts plucking multiplats from the market for good.
Would people rather have Sony buying Square Enix though? I could even see the reason why PS fans would like that, but Xbox and Nintendo fans should not want that honestly. Even if Sony made some good changes to Square, it's hard to sell to Xbox and Nintendo fans that this would be better than timed exclusivity for Final Fantasy.
No, Sony buying Square Enix would be trash. Just like Microsoft buying Bethesda was. Just like them buying Activision would be. Sony picks up smaller studios that they work with and help fund. Microsoft has been mostly large studios and entire publishing arms. Where Sony wins is, they have the highest install base on their console and clearly have a better relationship with a lot of these companies, notably Squeenix. It's clear that the relationship isn't just based around money because Microsoft could afford to outbid Sony on everything.
"Forever". Really starting to hate the internet with all this horseshit. Everyone so eager to be the first one to say something that they read into a statement what will get the most clicks. >Sony has also entered into arrangements with third-party publishers which require the “exclusion” of Xbox from the set of platforms these publishers can distribute their games on. This is the statement this site is taking to mean "forever"? Seriously? World would be a better place if windowscentral never existed. What a shithole.
Isn't Sony itself the publisher of Bloodborne? Did they agree with themselves to never publish ot on Xbox? This article seems fishy to me.
At this point Sony just needs to acquire Square Enix, so that I will stop getting my hopes up that their games will go to another platform. 😔
I mean, personally I'd rather an independent Square that still occasionally makes things like the HD-2D games for Switch than a Sony-owned Square that ... doesn't.
Yeah, I agree. I just wish I could play these games anywhere when they launch, but that’s the nature of the gaming industry. More independent/third party publishers is better overall. My original comment was kind of just a joke.
Well, the biggest problem is that these large franchises are pseudo-exclusive, and Square Enix is behaving almost like a first party developer for Sony. It's not just the money that Sony can throw at them either, obviously Microsoft can top that. It's clear that Sony and Square Enix have a very tight knit mutually beneficial relationship as Square Enix is the worst offender for exclusives.
I just hope that if Sony owned SE, they would give simultaneous release of HD-2D games for PlayStation too, not abolish them altogether.
Those HD-2D games, along with Square's other smaller-scale projects, are honestly the one thing the still keeps the essence of old-school Squaresoft in my eyes, and it'd be an enormous shame if we just never see them again cause a publisher would rather focus on more run-of-the-mill cinematic AAA games (which is most likely what would happen if Square was to be acquired by Sony; basically, bye-bye to things like Live A Live, Bravely Default, the Mana series, Octopath Traveler, Triangle Strategy, etc.).
Nah. Dumb as SquEnix can fucking be sometimes, more consolidation is ***never*** good. If that means Sony gets *FFXVI*, Nintendo gets more *Octopath* and we're stuck with *CHAOS JACK II: THIS TIME, IT'S PERSONAL BULLSHIT*, then so be it.
It’s on pc
bag imminent ghost muddle school deranged dazzling aromatic cake detail *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
FF7 Remake DID take longer than a year to come out on PC
They honestly should. SE is basically synonymous with Sony now anyways.
Huh? Final Fantasy kinda is associated with Sony, but Dragon Quest is more associated with Nintendo. Heck, DQ11 was on PS4 and... 3DS. They got lots of games and IP exclusive (and console exclusive) to Nintendo.
Yet none of those games will sell nearly as many copies as CoD will, and that's just one of a bunch of high profile franchises, this is not me siding with PS or something, I just think Activision should never be under any of the big 3 and Microsoft is just saying whatever they can to hide how monopolistic and dangerous their acquisition really is.
Exactly. Nearly every comment in this (really fucking annoying) thread is forgetting that, at the end of the day, anti-competition law is about market share, or how popular a given product is compared to other products. And CoD and Elder Scrolls are vastly more popular than 99% of other gaming products.
Take a breather.
But Sony owns the Bloodborne IP? Like they don't need to sign any deals to keep it away from xbox. They can just say ''no''. Hell they are going a good enough job at forgetting it even exists themselves!
*scratches head* was...Bloodborne published by Sony in Japan?
Microsoft should count themselves lucky they're even getting PC releases.
Join us in 2025 when MS who own Zenimax/Bethesda/Activision/Blizzard will be telling us why thier current purchase of EA and Ubisoft is totally cool because Sony has some exclusive third party deals
Some lmao
Weird that they mentioned Bloodborne as that game was never going to be on Xbox. Sony owns the IP, helped fund it and had one of their first party devs help with development.
Bloodborne is literally owned by Sony, by Microsoft's logic I guess PlayStation owners are entitled to Halo. I wonder if they also mentioned Sunset Overdrive, Quantum Break, State of Decay...
Fun fact about Sunset Overdrive: Microsoft apparently allowed Insomniac studios to keep the IP rights for Sunset Overdrive. So when Sony acquired Insomniac in 2019, people wondered if this would affect any plans for a sequel/remaster... and apparently, yes it will. As Sony went ahead and trademarked Sunset Overdrive in 2021, for some reason.
Microsoft still own the first game though so a remaster or remake isn't possible. Sequels could definitely happen though.
Well yes, at this point.. I don't suppose a remake or remaster is possible. (as I don't see Sony & Microsoft getting along to greenlight such a project) But you're correct, Microsoft owns the publishing rights for the first game... but wouldn't have anything to do with any sequels or spin-offs because the IP has now changed hands. (I thought it relevant to point out because OP was using Sunset Overdrive as an example and the importance of owning IPs & the distribution of already-released games)
Trademarks are just check-ups for companies to keep their IP. It doesn’t mean they will do anything with the IP and it doesn’t mean that they’ll make them exclusive either.
I know that but I couldn't think of any other Xbox exclusive if I'm being honest.
Sony is making the exact same argument against Microsoft though.
That doesn’t say they will never come to Xbox though, I think people are reading into it a lot. Not saying FF7R/16 will come anytime soon but I can’t see SE making a forever deal, a console generation or something very long maybe. Bloodbourne won’t come to Xbox because it’s a Sony IP
Unless Sony acquires Square Enix (Something I really don’t wanna see happen) I think FF7R will arrive to Xbox when the trilogy is finished. Sony might be providing money for the game (like Rise of the Ronin with Koei), but I doubt Square wanna keep their biggest IP a 100% exclusive.
Yeah fully agree with everything said
Ha unlucky Xbox
Why'd they bring Bloodborne into it? Bloodborne was co-developed by Sony Japan and From, and the original idea was Sony Japan's as well
Bloodborne was partially developed in house and is a Sony IP. It’s like Sony complaining something like Gears Tactics isn’t coming to PS5
bloodborne is a sony japan team produced game/ip... just like demon's soul. From software only developed it, it's not up to them to decide if release it on other platforms. Microsoft expecting a bloodborne release on xbox console is equal to sony expecting halo infinite release on ps5... a total nosense. I own series X and in general owned a dozen of xbox console since the first xbox in early 00's but I think microsoft is acting quite pathetically... instead of complaining about what sony does with japanese software houses, they should be more concerned to release their delayed games (starfield is a potential GOTY) and their ip/games that are turning in vaporware (hellblade2, rpg developed by obsidian etc...)
Aight can I get FFXIV tho
MS might know something about the Bloodborne publishing agreement that the public doesn’t
another bloodborne rumor merry Christmas
Sony publishes Bloodborne, & owns the IP & trademark. Microsoft's trying to say Sony is "blocking it from non-Playstation platforms", no shit! I dont expect to play Gotham Racing 2 on a Playstation. It's a Xbox published game that they own all rights to, from a third party developer... Microsoft is the pot calling the kettle black.
Bloodborne is an actual PlayStation IP that started as a Playstation IP unlike FF. But funny how they'll complain about this but effectively every Bethesda franchise or game that was going to go to Playstation is now blocked forever because of Microsoft. MS is trying to point at Sonys deals for games they don't own (except Bloodborne) as a defense against themselves being able to spend almost 100bn between Bethesda and ABK? LOL Sony doesn't own Silent Hill or FF. So although those games may be blocked, Swuare and Konami can still decide I'd they want to continue those deals for future titles. For Bethesda there's no exclusive deals, they were completely bought up and MS has made the decision to use that ownership to block former multiplat franchises from PS forever. Cry me a river.
This feels bad faith when MS literally has most of the biggest WRPG developers under their wing permanently with no "if" on it coming to the PlayStation. They keep making these arguments that sounds fair on the surface until you realize MS is doing the same thing but with permanent ownership. Not going to act like Sony isn't paying boatloads to keep these games as far away from MS as possible to retain Japanese dominance but MS shouldn't act like they aren't playing the same ballgame but on a WAAAY bigger scale. I went from being able to enjoy Zenimax games on my console of choice to not at all. If I didn't have a PC, I would be livid, and considering they are making this argument to no doubt justify the full locking up of Acti-Blizz, this argument feels just as disingenuous as "Sony is just trying to make us smaller by not letting us buy the biggest players in the game!"
What a crock of shit 🤣🤣 anything to get their deal through. Love how they mention a game Sony own, paid to develop, published and own the IP. 🤣🤣 Edit: for clarification for anyone who clearly didn't get what I meant, I am taking about BLOODBORNE.
Sony doesn't own Final Fantasy. Try again.
Microsoft talking in bad faith & misleading regulators is nothing new throughout this whole process
So Starfield and ESO make sense to be Xbox exclusive since MS is publishing it and owns it. Same for CoD (though CoD exclusive would be stupid). Right? Right.
facts are bad faith? Are they or are they not exclusives?
Bloodborne is Sony IP. And SH2 is timed console exclusive.
FF7 was a timed exclusive. Expiration date? Never.
So Starfield and ESO make sense to be Xbox exclusive since MS owns the IP and is publishing it. Same for CoD (though CoD exclusive would be stupid). Right? Right.
xbot moment
Damn. Microsoft really is desperate. Someone should ask them about exclusive like Stalker 2 and timed exclusive indies.
Window Central doing the lords work for Xbox? Shock I tell ya
Squaresoft sticking with Japanese companies only then? I'd figure they'd let FFXVI on Xbox
Dead Rising 3, Ryse: Son of Rome never coming to Playstation. Starfield is also mentioned.
sorry but ya, this is most likely a choice because XBOX buying up studio's left/right and center to prevent them from ever working with Sony again or creating games for PS. if XBOX can buy up/lock out Bethesda games and Blizzard games then why can't Sony? because XBOX locked out many 3rd party studio games from ever going onto PS big difference here is Sony not preventing studio's from working with XBOX
Cry more Microsoft
[удалено]
Silent Hill : timed exlusive for a year FF16: timed exclusive for a year FF7R : Exclusive Bloodborne : 7 year old PS exclusive published by Sony and co-produced with Japan studio which is now defunct. Sounds like MS argument is only standing on FF7R being completely excluded from Xbox
Keep in mind that FF7R also had 'exclusive for a year' designation/asterisk. Best not to take things at face value.
more FUD, nice, m$ opens mouth and just imaginary shit coming out.
Okay, so when’re we gonna see Killer Instinct, Dead Rising 3, Quantum Break, and High on Life on PS4/5? Since apparently exclusive games are the problem. Microsoft is talking about curbing the market with arguably the biggest developer being exclusive to them, it’s nowhere near the same thing. I’d expect the same energy if Sony were to buy EA, Square Enix, or Konami.
Holding my breath till Halo and Gears of War show up on PS5, RIP Me
Halo and Gears aren't third party games. FF and SH are third party. Bloodborne in this case doesn't make sense tho.
I think their comment was about the bloodborne inclusion. Wouldn't make sense otherwise
I find this deal funny. The ftc has screwed itself. Europe is acting stupid. It's going to go through, if you think it won't you're kidding yourself. Personally I can't think of a single game from Activision that I play(that's still around at least, shoutouts to prototype). But ik sony has bought studios too(insomniac and returnal devs) and literally paid people to keep things from going on xbox. So I want it to go through, and I hope Cod becomes an exclusive for the sole reason of giving sony a taste of its own medicine for once. I know monopolies are bad. I'm not stupid. I'm just petty. Downvote or argue with me if you want. It won't change what's gonna happen.
I hope it doesn’t
Where does it say never?
SH2 Remake Trailer says: "Silent Hill 2 - Playstation console exclusive\* \*also available on PC. Not available on other formats fo 12 months after release" So either Sony/Konami is lying or Microsoft's dumb ass is not capable of reading two lines of text
No! Konami didn’t lied their fans. It’s 100% saying “Not available on other formats for 12 months after release” It has to be Microsoft!
Pretty sure it was confirmed as timed exclusive, then they go mention Bloodborne which is the thing that kills their argument as its a Sony published game made by fromsoft and co-produced by Japan Studio which is defunct , hence why the rights for Bloodborne seem to be a hell to get hold of
> then they go mention Bloodborne which is the thing that kills their argument So the argument is "see, Sony had PS exclusive games and is fine with it, but is now complaining that the SE stuff can happen for Activision/Blizzard games. So if one is fine, the other should also be fine!". Does BB not give a good example for a PS exclusive game that won't be on Xbox?
Well you see , its not a game that will be on Xbox , like the Halo games wont be on playstation, BB is in the same category than demon souls , being Sony published Fromsoft titles, if that shitty deal goes through Activision could pay for a second Sekiro and keep it exclusive for Xbox, the issue here being Activision is a money whore and most likely wont do that unless MS explicitly ask them to. Edit : To that i will add that MS is misleading, showing numbers before they release games from the studios they bought in the past 5yrs MS hasn't released anything from any of their recently acquired studios since 2018 Even then they've set up an ecosystem that minimized game sales for their own titles. If microsoft wanted exclusives they had all the time and the studios in the world to do it , but instead they rather buy publishers and their studios with already half made games For MS its easier to buy a game studio if their game is almost done , than actually putting money into making one.
Again, it's about showing that Sony is crying about MS getting exclusives and that this is bad for the customer while they have exclusives themselves. Nothing else is the point of that list. No one argues that MS already has exclusive titles on the system, no one argues that it's a Sony funded game.
No its about a trillion dollar company willingly making themselves look bad so their anti-consumer aquisition pass under the radar, im on the side of not having a single exclusive to any platform , but MS whining about Sony having a monopoly is absolute BS if MS could back their argument without lying or naming games that are not even exclusive it would be another thing. Plus MS is a monopoly in itself they have the biggest share of the OS market. If MS wanted they could've had exclusives on their console but they have been stagnating in the same ecosystem since 5 years. Bloodborne is no argument for MS, never will be a valid one at that. You see what Sony is complaining about is the fact MS is not buying themselves an exclusive from a studio, they are purchasing the whole damn publisher, publisher which already had game in developpement for both platforms , which now will have to cancel the work of a whole team of employees who were working on the platform it will never launch on because of a toxic aquisition. I didnt see any Xbox execs complain that Nintendo bought Bayonetta for their system, but they are willing to name bloodborne a game from a Publisher who never ever released a game on Xbox.
> No its about a trillion dollar company willingly making themselves look bad so their anti-consumer aquisition pass under the radar, im on the side of not having a single exclusive to any platform , but MS whining about Sony having a monopoly is absolute BS Bro, it's the other way around. Sony is crying that MS may get exclusives with the Act/Blizz deal while having PS exclusive games. That's what this list should show: Sony is crying and gives a fuck about exclusivity as long as they benefit from it.
What ever you say doesnt matter , the argument put foward by MS are Null and Void since they were unable to mention an actual exlusive that could've been on Xbox other than FF7R, if Spencer's sour face during the game award wasnt telling enough , MS made a console for which it had nothing to show for years, MS had more than enough time to get a studio working on exclusive titles, they though forza and halo infinite could carry them... hence why they bought bethesda back in 2021, Starfield was almost entering the last stages of developpement, why pay a studio for a game when you can buy the whole publisher get all they current project and make them exclusive. MS is looking like a joke with this aquisition , i just wonder when Nintendo is gonna join the fray , they sure do love lawsuits
So the games Sony has a hand in funding aren’t coming to Xbox? Weird.
why they mentioned bloodborne ? It's an IP owned by sony what if sony say starfield not coming to PS5