Spencer: The Elder Scrolls VI Xbox Exclusivity is Not About Punishing PlayStation - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 15 November 2021 / 2,937 Views
Head of Xbox Phil Spencer speaking with GQ discussed Bethesda's upcoming games and Xbox exclusivity. It was previously confirmed earlier this year Bethesda's Starfield will only launch on the Xbox Series X|S and PC.
Spencer sees The Elder Scrolls VI also being exclusive to Xbox and PC. To him, Xbox is the whole experience.
"It’s not about punishing any other platform, like I fundamentally believe all of the platforms can continue to grow," said Spencer.
"But in order to be on Xbox, I want us to be able to bring the full complete package of what we have. And that would be true when I think about Elder Scrolls VI. That would be true when I think about any of our franchises."
The Elder Scrolls VI is many years off as Bethesda is focused on Starfield, which is set to launch on November 11, 2022. Following this date the team will put its focus on The Elder Scrolls VI.
Bethesda Game Studios director Todd Howard in the same article discussed the early days being part of Xbox. He says Game Pass has opened up the "creative canvas."
"Before [Game Pass] you might want to make this game, and then you’re gonna sit in a lot of forecasting sales meetings, and say, 'well, I don’t know if we can make that game,'" said Howard. "Game Pass opens up the creative canvas to many more types of games that may not find an audience in other ways."
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012. In 2017, he took over the VGChartz hardware estimates. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel dedicated to gaming Let's Plays. You can contact the author at wdangelo@vgchartz.com or on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
"In his eyes, Xbox is the whole experience. Xbox Live. Game Pass. Cloud Gaming. Friends lists. Save states. “It’s not about punishing any other platform, like I fundamentally believe all of the platforms can continue to grow,” he says. “But in order to be on Xbox, I want us to be able to bring the full complete package of what we have. And that would be true when I think about Elder Scrolls VI. That would be true when I think about any of our franchises.”"
Releasing on other platforms doesn't stop you from having the "full complete package" of Xbox features on your own systems. The Outer Worlds, Minecraft Dungeons, Psychonauts 2: None of these games have been limited on Xbox by being multiplatform. they still have every Xbox feature he listed.
It is absolutely about taking something away from other platforms to make your own platform more attractive. There's no need for this PR spiel.
You're right. Ish. The "Ish" part for me is having yet another development team, and yet another platform to support. The one and only argument to be made here is the consolidation of development resources around Xbox and PC (that have a harmonized development environment these days, which is new for Series consoles as that wasn't true with the Xbox One). I'm surprised he didn't make that argument (having the whole team focused on a single development environment). To me that's the one thing he could have said that would have really made sense.
It's not just a port and you're done. There's build the game from the ground up for a different development environment, then there's extensive testing and optimization, then there's after-sales support with bug fixes, etc.
I'm not arguing it shouldn't come to PS. I'm just saying that the spreading thing of development dollars is the best argument he could have used, IMO. Developers don't grow on trees. If it was easy to just hire a bunch of competent and experienced develoeprs, they wouldn't have the Initiative partnering the Crystal Dynamics, I suspect.
It's an opportunity cost thing. Investing development dollars in something that doesn't enhance subscription/cloud revenue isn't Microsoft's thing these days.
But I don't disagree with you, I have said from the beginning that most Bethesda games should come to PS for at least one more iteration each. I'm not arguing in favour of not doing it. I'm just saying what would have been the best argument to make, IMO.
You are being somewhat disingenuous you outlined your reasons as to why and then built upon it by adding that you were surprised that he didn't make that argument. now you seem to be saying you weren't arguing that case well in replying to my "you make it sound like a burden "comment to refresh your memory I quote you "it's not just a port and you're done. There's build the game from the ground up for a different development environment, then there's extensive testing and optimization, then there's after-sales support with bug fixes, etc." that sounds like arguing a case to me.
Not at all. I attempted to be clear that this would have been the strongest argument Phil Spencer could have made, and everything I added was in support of my original statement (trying to explain why it's the strongest argument Spencer could have made). I'm otherwise on record that they should continue porting these games to PlayStation. So not disingenuous at all.
Fair enough that you understood it that way, but that's an opportunity for you to be curious with me about the apparent contradiction, rather than accusatory about it.
Let me be clearer then for you: what Spencer offered was a confusing word salad. If he'd instead said that they don't want to hire PS-specific developers, or invest the time and energy in those ports, would be the strongest argument he could make IMO. That doesn't mean it's necessarily a strong argument, just that it's the strongest. I actually don't think there's a really strong argument. I think the strongest advertisement for Microsoft's services is "buy it for $60-70 on PS, or get it on Day 1 on Game Pass".
In every other thread where this topic has come up I've said they should keep porting games to PS. At a minimum to the PS4, as that version could also run in enhanced form in PS4 Pro and PS5, hitting all three systems with just one version of the game. You can search as far and wide as you like, and you won't find me saying anything different in any other thread. So no, not disingenuous at all.
I was rebutting what was put forward about potential barriers and technical reasons in regard to porting the game to PS5 I wasn't responding to or addressing the merits of what platform it should or shouldn't be on , and your purpose in bringing it up or whether it was hypothetical doesn't do anything to alter those arguments.
That doesn't mean I don't see where your coming from just that it comes across in a messy way where you put up a defence while at the same take a step back , but reading between the lines you and I aren't so far apart. cheers
I had attempted to be clear that the best argument he could make was the added development cost/complexity, and all my following comments were in that context (explaining why it was the strongest argument to be made). But sometimes the strongest argument that can be made is still a weak argument. :) Fair enough for the confusion. :)
Several games have cross-platform working. Sure some have those issues of not being able to transfer your safe or account from one platform to another. The big issue from what we hear is MS trying to push the need for Gold and similar for those games on different platforms.
Well, I think you are missing the point here.
You are putting yourself in the shoes of those "If the other platform gets less it is a win for mine...".
What he is saying, and I agree with him, is that moves like that are not to "punish" Play Station players but their focus is 100% to make the GamePass/Xbox players happier... Of course this moves will not make people who will not be able to play the game happy on other platform, but at the end the main goal/reason to do that was not to punish them. They are just "collateral" damage in a sense. The only reason they did that, is to make THEIR platform better and move attractive. Simple as that. Nothing to do with punishment at all.
Your argument about "releasing on other platform", is very flawed. People and medias complained during the last generation about how Xbox is not a good place, cause no exclusives, bla bla bla... I mean, let's not bury our head in the sand here... And now they fixed it, and the only way to do that is to have games, you know, exclusives... But again, at the end, this is not to punish the other platform. It is to make YOUR own platform more attractive and please players/medias.
Those games would already come to Xbox, and MS could even pay for it to be day one on GP without buying the company, or after buying the company they could still release on other platforms if they so choose. Unless you want to go for the single frame that Xbox players will be happier with the game not being available on PS (for which Phil said in the past he is against console wars and the like, sure we believe him) even if available on PC, then it not being on PS have nothing to do with making the Xbox players happier.
This very hypocrite :) You probably know better than anyone, how Xbox not having "exclusives" was one of the front argument for medias/fanboys and their stupid console wars/etc. and how it affected (to an extend of course) the sales of the Xbox consoles versus the Play Station consoles. Don't pretend this is not good for Xbox to have exclusives please, it is CLEARLY why they did that; to fix this issue. But w/e, if you really believe that Microsoft spent 7.5B to punish some players, then sure, believe that. There is really nothing else to argue here :)
And they didn't create it, they gone and bought multiplatform to make them exclusive, so what did xbox gamers won?
I just explained it... Xbox "HAS" exclusives now; that's why they did that. If you used that as an issue on the Xbox side before, you cannot just ignore it now like it is not a gain/win for the Xbox side; having more exclusives IS GOOD for Xbox. But anyway, sure, let's keep arguing that Microsoft spent 7.5B to punish Play Station gamers cause they were not nice to them, they had nothing else to do with that money, why not do that right? Come on... This is ridiculous to even keep arguing about that.
I guess the point must be in a rocket for it to pass so high over your head. There was 0 gain to Xbox platform in term of games but was a loss for PS with the games that were to be multiplat becoming exclusive to Xbox. So again how does that benefit the Xbox players instead of damaging the others? And just to comment, I don't even buy bethesda games so that is a 0 loss for me personally.
No, the point of THIS specific article is about "not punishing"; Without the need to EVEN argue about it; I'm pretty much on point saying that they had no intention of punishing anyone... Thinking that Microsoft spent 7.5B TO PUNISH Play Station players is ridiculous, do you even believe yourself when you write that and you keep arguing about it to prove that?
You can start being arrogant with your "rocket" stuff if you want but at the end, as I said, it is 100% expected (even if completely ridiculous) for someone like you to say they did it for that; but that's what this article and my response is ALL about. You can pretend that gaining exclusives is not important for Xbox players, that's your own non-sense. As an Xbox players, that's a positive for me , anything good for the brand is good for the brand gamers, this is math 101... Or maybe, having so many exclusives on Play Station is not good for you right, if all Play Station exclusives were available everywhere it would be as good, no difference? How selective you are in your arguments :)
As for the argument, you are mixing up "punishing" and "unfortunate consequences" for the Play Station players. Two completely different things based on the intention of the acquisition. (at the end I never said it was not bad or did not sucked for non Xbox/PC gamers, cause it does and I always agreed with that...)
Anyway, I'm done responding to you, I do not even know why I wasted time with you in the first place. Here you go: Yes, Microsoft goal was to punish you, that was their intention, not to strengthen the Xbox brand at all, this acquisition did not do anything good for them or their player base, having more exclusives is bad for Microsoft and their player base!
Doesn't bother me, this is expected. But Spencer talking about this "full complete package" like its something only Xbox can do. So I'm curious what this could be, or he just doesn't want to say flat out that they're just making it only for Xbox. Because now I have more expectations as to why this is meant to be an exclusive game rather than it being just a typical exclusive game.
They went in hard to get a little momentum for their system launch and to try to take some attention away from Sony's, he is just being a PR machine saying any different. I don't think it will mean Sony will sell less, but Sony may make a few more studio purchases because of it. I'm not sure that they need to, but since the industry seems to be going that way they will probably stay aggressive.
Doesn't make the slightest sense what he was saying, but yes I wasn't expecting Elder Scrolls VI on PS5, but pretending it isn't "to punish PS5 players but to offer the full package" or worse Bethesda multi billion dollar company acting as if they had issues financing their titles.
Its not even exclusive. Its also on PC. All this is doing is just killing console gaming.
So are Sony's exclusives not exclusive anymore either now? I already pre-ordered God of War on Steam and I'll do the same once Uncharted 4 gets a release date.
Pretty sure you're overstating it though. Consoles have always been about affordable plug n play gaming. Most people aren't going to have the means to buy a gaming PC or have the desire to troubleshoot their PC. Most will just want a plug n play gaming experience that doesn't cost around $1000 or more.
this game is so far far away it is not worth talking about it.
Let's be honest buying Bethesda was a power move and a quick way to even the level of playing field between MS and PlayStation. Creating new studio's to have the same exclusive power as Nintendo and Sony was very time consuming and buying Bethesda was a quick and easy way to become the biggest video game developer. But don't come with an it's for the players BS argument. It's just a powermove and more will follow.
They didn't fixthe exclusives issue though. Those multiplats that are now exclusives were expected to release on series x regardless By buying them out and making them exclusive to xbox doesn't fix the first party issue from last gen of not having enough first party titles.
Now people think , oh great more exclusives, but in reality you end up with less games than what would have been expected, considering microsft studios up the ante and invest in their own first party games like their glory days on xbox and xbox 360.
Then that just means more people are going to buy a Series X/S than they would've. Whenever a mainline ES or Fallout game launches, they're system sellers. Starfield won't be any different. People will buy a console that those games are on. Microsoft knew that.
They have been highly investing in their first party games that are already owned. Just look at Forza Horizon 5, Halo Infinite, and Age of Empires 4. Then starting a brand new studio with The Initiative. They're doing that investment, but they took it a lot further than any of us expected.
There isn't anything special with age of empires4, halo was expecected as always, as was forza. But they aren't doing anything new in terms of AAA to compete with sony and nintendo on first party. It's the same games every generation, along with gears. Where are the new IPs.
Fair enough, but their other first party studios are working on new IPs. We'll remove Bethesda games such as Starfield and Redfall since those were already in development by the time Microsoft made the purchase.
But Obsidian is working on Avowed, although it's in the Pillars of Eternity universe, but brand new type of game in that series alongside Outer Worlds 2. Then there's Josh Sawyer's leaked smaller project called Pentiment that's supposed to release next year. Double Fine has already said they're working on a brand new IP after Psychonauts 2 released. Rare is working on Everwild, Ninja Thoery is working on Project Mara alongside Hellblade 2, and inXile Entertainment is working on a Steampunk FPS RPG that supposedly has the largest budget within Xbox Game Studios.
Those are just games we know of besides the other games that are part of existing franchises like the Perfect Dark reboot, Fable, and State of Decay 3. Then there's that third party exclusive, Contraband, but not many details on that one. New IPs are coming. They just take time.
I know it is controversial but it is a fact of life.
If company X buys product Y then why the heck would they spend all that money on it if they don't retain something from that purchase?
I would love for Elder Scrolls to be on every console (something tells me it still will eventually ?) but Microsoft made a calculated move. Sony has done the same in the past with certain studios and this has been the way it has been since the SEGA/SNES days.
Microsoft has been lagging behind in the exclusivity department for a few gens IMO and I think they finally came to the decision that if they can't fund their own 1st party studios and count on them to make numerous system selling titles than the next best thing was to buy out 3rd party developers that could get the job done.
Hey, it may seem a bit lazy but at the end of the day if you can only play your favorite games on their console which system do you think you're going to buy?
-CALCULATED VIDEOGAME STRATEGY NINJA APPROVED-
People don't like stuff taken away from them but what rankles here is Phil's hypocrisy and while nothing but a PS version would satisfy some if he just said despite it being the antithesis to my past rhetoric about 3rd party exclusivity, we bought them to strengthen game pass and a large part of that is making them exclusive at least you could respect that.
It is not a controversy. People are just salty when it personally impact them (like not being able to play game X or Y anymore). People (like the comment below) are calling out Phil's hypocrisy because they are claiming that what he said is wrong, when it is indeed 100% true.
They are mixing up making his platform better, more attractive with being "punished" cause of the collateral damages impacting them when making games exclusives...
I mean, the Sony enthusiast and the medias used this "Xbox has no exclusives" during the whole generation and now that they are fixing it, it is "punishment" to them?... It is not, and that's what Phil is saying, which is just true.
You can boost your exclusives by making them yourself instead of buying up whole third party publishers to get some. There's no way to spin this into a positive. Yeah, everybody does this but drop the Xplaining.
Again, never said it was positive for Play Station gamers. but the move was not to punish them. You are spinning this into a war like their goal is to make the other side punished, even talking :) Not me. Don't talk about "spinning", I'm not the one doing it. If you really believe Microsoft spent 7.5 B to "punish" some players... Well, yah, you guys can keep downvoting and raging, nothing I can do about it :)
Tod howard is a liar and an idiot. Is he now suggesting without gamepass he would not have the crative freedom to make the elderscrolls/fallout game of his dreams? As though you need gamepass to make your best AAA game possible.
After the good but not great fallout 4 and terrible launch and overall experience and let down of fallout 76, how can anyone take him seriously and be hyped for any upcoming games from tod howard?
Maybe he is saying he is now free to make more Fallout 76 because he will get the money anyway.
Todd didn't work on Fallout 76
Oh really. Well he certainly overlooked the project, and talked so much about it and hightly of it pre launch.
For sure! Can't argue on that. Bethesda knew if Todd put his face on the announcement and marketing that it would sell. Which is why I refuse to get FO76 regardless how much better it gets.
The result is most likely the same...
Let the denial please end…….although I don’t think it would even matter. Phil Spencer could directly come out and say that every Bethesda game from now until eternity will be an Xbox exclusive and there will still be those that say “there’s still a chance”
Why is this still news? The title of this article should be change, Phil Spencer mention other console nothing to do with Playstation.
How about, 'Xbox does another 180', though that might be too clear, which clearly, isn't the goal here. 'Exclusives were bad' says Spencer, 'but they're also good now'. This is transparency.
Its not exclusive to one platform, its coming to PC and Cloud. Basically, available everywhere that support gamepass.
So, exclusive to XB then, correct?
Didn't Phil recently say GP offers the full XB experience?
Essay Pro